Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL (OMNIBUS SERVICES)

ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Postal Delays

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, when he next meets the chairman of the Post Office, he will raise with him the matter of delays to Her Majesty's mails and, in particular, the failure to honour the first-class post.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Yes, Sir. I normally discuss at our meetings the plans of the Post Office to provide a more efficient and economical service.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not a gamble whether a first-class or a second-class letter will arrive first? Is my hon. Friend aware that a first-class letter posted from the House of Commons reached me in London W8 three days later?

Mr. Tebbit: Of course, there are criticisms to be made of the service that is offered by the Post Office. It has been through some difficult times, particularly with industrial relations. However, the recent agreements that have been reached between the Post Office and the principal union hold out a very good prospect that the service will be improved. I hope that in future it will be far less of a gamble and a far more reliable service.

Mr. Robert Hughes: While everybody wishes the Post Office to achieve maximum efficiency, especially by the use of modern methods and full post codes, is not the Post Office saying that unless the post code is used in full, first-class letters will be treated as second-class letters? Does the Secretary of State approve of that? Will he take steps to ensure that it does not happen?

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Speaker, I did not fully follow the hon. Gentleman's question. I wonder whether he could be permitted to repeat it.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, briefly. I understand that the Post Office's view is that unless the full post code is used there is no guarantee that first-class mail will be treated as a first-class service. Is that not wrong? Will the Secretary of State try to do something about it?

Mr. Tebbitt: That is essentially a matter for the management of the Post Office. It will endeavour to offer the best service possible in any circumstances, but to give it the best possible chance of providing a really first-class service the use of the post code is highly desirable.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend surprised to learn that a constituent of mine who wrote asking me when my next surgery was to be held, in order to seek the benefit of my advice and experience, received my reply, giving him that information, several days too late? I learnt of that only this week when I received a letter saying why he had not attended my surgery. If a letter posted from the mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons, in a House of Commons envelope with a first-class stamp on it, arrives late, how does an ordinary individual in this country stand a chance in hell of getting his mail delivered first-class the day afterwards? It is scandalous.

Mr. Tebbit: I am amazed that my hon. Friend's constituents are not aware of the regularity with which he holds his advice bureau. It is most uncharacteristic of him to hide his light under a bushel. The figures show that getting on for nine out of 10 first-class letters are delivered the following day. I do not believe that that is good enough, and the Post Office does not believe that is good enough. I hope that the new agreements that have been reached will lead to a more constructive attitude on the part of all those in the Post Office towards providing a better service.

Mr. Madden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office management in Bradford has been appealing to the public not to use post offices during several days of each week which are regarded as exceptionally busy? Is he further aware that those appeals follow the closure of many sub-post offices in my constituency and elsewhare? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that sub-post offices are not shut on the basis of arbitrary and unclear criteria and that customers who use post offices are given a reasonable service?

Mr. Tebbit: Sub-post offices are not closed on arbitrary and unfair criteria. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when they are closed, they are closed on clear grounds. I am sure that it is only sensible that the Post Office advises people that, if they want to get the quickest possible service, they should remember that there are busy days and lightly loaded days. That is no different from reminding people that buses and tubes are more crowded during the rush hour than at off peak times.

Footwear Industry

Mr. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist the development of the footwear manufacturing industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): My department has a wide range of schemes currently available to assist the development of industry, including the footwear manufacturing industry.

Mr. Freeman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way for the Government to help the footwear industry is to encourage the introduction of new technology, especially microelectronic process control technology, which will safeguard, rather than lose, jobs?

Mr. Trippier: Yes. In addition to the substantial grant which the Department of Trade and Industry gives the industry's research association, which last year was in excess of £500,000, officials in my Department are engaged in negotiations with representatives from the industry on the use of advanced techniques in the manufacture of footwear.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister worried about the influence of the British Shoe Corporation on the British footwear market?

Mr. Trippier: There is a retail commitment, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar and to which we refer from time to time. I appreciate that there have been discussions about this matter in the all-party footwear committee. If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw my attention to any specific matter, I shall consider it seriously.

Mr. Fry: In the context of the future of the footwear industry, has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 834, which asks the Government to act on the danger of the United States Government imposing quotas on exports of footwear to that country? Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to make a statement?

Mr. Trippier: I have seen that early-day motion, which has been signed by colleagues with constituency interests in footwear, and I agree with the thrust of it. With our full backing, the Community has registered the strongest possible representation to the United States Administration that, if exports from the EC to the United States are to be curtailed, that would be unjustified and oblige the Community to take advantage of its powers under the general agreement on tariffs and trade to be compensated fully for injury caused to our exporters. It would not be understood in this House if the Americans introduced such a protectionist measure, because it would not sit easily with their professed belief in free trade.

Mr. John Smith: In the event of the Americans not matching their actions to their beliefs and quotas being applied, will the Government ensure that such quotas are applied country by country, or on an EEC basis, whereupon the Government will put pressure on Brussels to ensure that there is a country by country allocation of those quotas, as the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation has asked the Government to do?

Mr. Trippier: I should not like to go down that path, for the simple reason that, at this stage, only the International Trade Commission is making representations to the American Administration. The ITC is not part of the American Government. Indeed, the American Administration has a good record on resisting the overtures of organisations, such as the ITC, with regard to the introduction of protectionist measures. I do not know whether we shall get anywhere near what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I hope that the record to which I have referred remains good.

Mr. Powley: If the position to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred came

about, and vast quantities of cheap shoes were being dumped on the English market to the detriment of our footwear industry, following early-day motion 834, would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider appropriate measures to protect our industry?

Mr. Trippier: It would be a case of retaliatory action, and we are nowhere near that at the moment. As I said in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I do not think we should be led down that path at this stage. The United States Administration have always resisted protectionist measures. Obviously it is our profound hope, as it is the hope of the European Community, that they will resist them again.

"Burdens on Business"

Mr. Greg Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many submissions have been received to date in response to his Department's consultative document, "Burdens on Business".

Mr. Trippier: We have received 78 submissions so far — 22 from business and other organisations, and 56 from firms or individuals.

Mr. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the House will applaud the initiative that he has taken to seek to cut away unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, which are indeed a burden on business? What further action does he propose? Will he bear in mind the increase—some of us would say regrettable increase — in Common Market regulations?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. The initiative to which he referred has been carried forward by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young of Graffham. He hopes to make a statement on the matter before both Houses rise for the summer recess.
My hon. Friend is right about the growing number of regulations that are coming out of the European Community. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the matter on two occasions in the European Council. We are now waiting for the European Commission to come forward with its ideas on how we can cut unnecessary burdens.

Mr. Ashdown: As the Minister knows, we support his attempts to reduce the burdens, especially on small businesses. Nevertheless, does he accept that the statistical base for the health of the small business sector is now so inadequate that we are unable to monitor properly the effect of Government policy? Does he further accept that it would be possible to set up a better monitoring system without increasing the burdens on small businesses? Will he take steps to put that into operation?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we have a paucity of statistical information with regard to the small firms sector, particularly about employment in that sector. It may be possible to introduce new measures. Perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry should consider a new way of trying to get at that information. Only recently I had a meeting in my office with representatives of Dun and Bradstreet, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, produces the statistics for small firms in the United States. Certainly those statistics are more prolific. Of course, I have great difficulty in


trying to balance increasing the statistical base and not increasing the burdens on small firms in regard to form filling.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing small businesses is the attitude of Government officials? In America, officials will go into a small firm with the sole aim of trying to help the entrepreneur, but here officials are far too often unsympathetic and at times antagonistic.

Mr. Trippier: The attitude of certain officials has been identified in the "Burdens on Business" scrutiny report. I am anxious, wherever possible, to encourage officials to be more user friendly.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General warned the Government recently that many small firms are not maintaining good health and safety standards? Does not that warning underline another report which shows that firms with fewer than 100 employees, although they account for only one in 20 of the work force, account for half of all machinery accidents? As the Government have already cut the Health and Safety Executive by 13 per cent., do not those figures make nonsense of the proposal in the document that small firms should be self-regulating in health and safety matters? While many small firms are responsible, will it not mean that the health and safety interests of far too many workers will be left in the hands and at the whim of cowboys and sweat shop operators?

Mr. Trippier: The right hon. Gentleman sought to make a similar point in the debate on small firms on 21 June. I should emphasise that the "Burdens on Business" scrutiny report, to which he referred, is not necessarily wholly the work of the Department of Trade and Industry. In fact, it transposed the views expressed by small business men who were interviewed in the "Burdens on Business" scrutiny. We have to try to find the right balance between licence and liberty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his foreword that there was no question of our removing necessary protections for employees, consumers or the public at large. However, we are determined to reduce the unnecessary burden and to simplify and rationalise those controls which must be retained.

Motor Vehicles (Spanish Origin)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to the number of motor vehicles of Spanish origin which were sold in Britain in 1984.

Mr. Tebbit: According to statistics produced by the industry, 95,348 Spanish-built cars, 4,759 light vans and 193 lorries were registered in the United Kingdom in 1984.

Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern among those connected with the British motor car industry about the apparent ease with which Spanish producers sell their products here and the not so ready access that British manufacturers enjoy to the Spanish market?

Mr. Tebbit: We are very much aware of that. As my hon. Friend knows, this problem arose because of the agreement signed between the Community and Spain back in 1970 before we joined the European Community. We

are dealing with it under the terms of the accession of Spain to the Community, and there are three principal measures which will be helpful.
First, all the Spanish import duties against our cars will be phased out over a period of seven years, and one half of that cut will be in the first three years.
Secondly, Spain will impose VAT on 1 January 1986, which will lessen discrimination against imports.
Thirdly, there will be a reduced duty quota, and in 1986 that will double the present level of cars imported into Spain.

Mr. Yeo: Too long.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, probably so, but that was the best arrangement that we could negotiate. In the circumstances, I think that it is a reasonable one.

Mr. Park: In view of the imbalance of trade between Spain and Great Britain in motor vehicles and the fact that there is now apparently to be another phasing-in period, despite the fact that the Spanish motor industry is now bigger than our own, why should we agree to this further phasing-in period, and why cannot we adopt the attitude of other countries to imports?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is a bit late in putting his point. After all, it was the Labour Government who renegotiated the terms of our membership of the European Community. If he thinks that it was possible to gain better terms for Britain, he should have made his point then. However, the opportunity did not arise again until the accession of Spain to the Community. The agreement which we have now negotiated is making the best of the bad job that we have had since 1970 in Spain's relations with the European Community.

Mr. Roger King: Given the present problems of selling cars to Spain or to any other European country, does my right hon. Friend consider that the recent agreement in Europe on exhaust emissions will benefit us in selling cars to Spain or anywhere else?

Mr. Tebbit: That agreement was not designed to benefit the motor industry. It was designed to benefit the environment. However, I think that the Germans might have thought of the possibility of imposing a speed limit on their autobahns first if they were really serious about guarding their environment.
Although it is likely that our reserve will be raised, I should make it clear that the agreement reached last week by the Environment Council is difficult for the United Kingdom to accept, and it will need the satisfactory resolution of a number of important outstanding technical points.

Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State acknowledges that it is a very difficult agreement for the United Kingdom, and I understand—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should not really have allowed the supplementary question posed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). It is rather wide of motor vehicles of Spanish origin.

Mr. Smith: I was seeking to ask the Secretary of State a question arising directly out of his answer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since I allowed the supplementary question, I think that is fair enough.

Mr. Smith: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
The Secretary of State said that the agreement raised difficulties for the United Kingdom. He added that a reserve would be put on it, but that it was likely to be lifted. If these difficulties persist, why is it proposed to lift the reserve? Why not keep it on?

Mr. Tebbit: We face a difficult decision. We must decide whether no agreement is better than the agreement reached ad referendum. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that that is a difficult decision. On balance, it would appear that to accept the agreement would hurt the motor vehicle industry less, not only in Britain but in the Community as a whole, than to reject it. I hope that we shall get a satisfactory resolution of those important outstanding technical points.

Regional Strategy

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation to date of his revised regional strategy.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): It is too early to measure the effectiveness of the revised policy, which has been in operation for only seven months. We shall make an assessment as soon as possible after the new incentive package has had time to work through into additional job opportunities.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that there are many structural improvements planned in Britain which, although not in development areas, if expedited could be of immense importance to those development areas? Does he further agree that such schemes would qualify for social funding? If so, who is responsible for making that decision, and how many schemes have been designated to date?

Mr. Lamont: I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic that a project in one area may have an impact on a development area. However, in general, those projects will not qualify for assistance under the present scheme, and they never have.

Mr. Harris: Regarding the regional strategy for the south-west, does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest handicap to its economy is the dreadful bottleneck on the A30 at Okehampton and the state of the A30 into Cornwall? Will he please lend his weight to those of us who want a reversal of the Select Committee's disastrous decision about the southern part of the Okehampton bypass?

Mr. Lamont: Every time I have been in the south-west I have heard a similar tune. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales was party to the decision to cut regional assistance? Is he aware that yesterday, on Welsh television, the Secretary of State deplored the loss of social fund assistance to mid-Wales, although that loss is the direct result of the withdrawal of assisted area status, to which he was a party? Since in the 12 months to April 1985 Brecon and Radnor, deprived of regional aid, has seen unemployment rise faster than in any other Welsh constituency — three times as fast as the increase in Wales as a whole—will the Minister assure the House that he will restore assisted area status to mid-Wales?

Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman made a speech about the by-election last night in the steel industry debate, and he has not stopped talking about it since. We were all waiting for his comments. The social fund is of relatively small magnitude as applied to Wales. The fact is that Wales came out of the review of regional policy relatively well.

European Community (United Kingdom Exports)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of exports to other member countries of the European Community in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the value in 1978, at constant prices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): In the year to May, United Kingdom exports to the other members of the European Community amounted to £35 billion compared with £13·5 billion in 1978. Those figures are at current prices. Constant price figures are not available, but a rough estimate of the increase in volume would be about 40 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Although there has been a satisfactory and commendable increase in British exports to the Community since 1978, does my hon. Friend agree that the increase would have been greater if British exporters had enjoyed the exchange rate stability that membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system would have given them?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We should not forget that the substantial increase in our exports, to which I have referred, has taken place without our being a member of the EMS, and that all countries, whether in or out of the EMS, are affected by exchange rate fluctuations.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the balance of payments situation between Britain and the other members of the Community is likely to continue to deteriorate if what is happening, for example, in Halifax in West Yorkshire continues? The Philips factory there, which is efficient, where there has been a major improvement in productivity, where wages are low—an aspect which the Government claim leads to job security —and where not one day has been lost as the result of industrial action in the last 13 years, has been closed down, with Philips having transferred production to Naples in Italy. Does the Minister agree that that is a scandal in relation to manufacturing industry in Britain? What do the Government intend to do about that? Will they just sit back and allow jobs to be lost in such circumstances?

Mr. Fletcher: I am, of course, sympathetic to the constituency problem that the hon. Gentleman raises. Although he refers to a deteriorating balance with the EEC, in the first quarter of this year our total visible trade with the Community was roughly in balance.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Those figures show how important a market the EEC now is to our manufacturing industries. However, would not our relationship with the Common Market be that much better if we had free trade in the service industries? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a major area where we could have considerable success by using our initiative?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that point was stressed by the Prime Minister at the conference last weekend in Milan.

Mr. Gould: Are not the figures made to look much better than they are by the inclusion of oil exports to the EC, which were virtually non-existent in 1978 and are now worth about £12 billion a year? Is it not a fact that in manufactured trade, which is what really counts, our share of the EC market has fallen sharply since 1978 and that we now have an enormous deficit of £9 billion? That is the true measure of the damage that the Conservatives have done to British industry.

Mr. Fletcher: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I am amazed that the Labour party should constantly pick out Britain for criticism. Many other countries export oil. Why should we not do so?

Departmental Contracts (Small Firms)

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further initiatives he has taken to seek to facilitate access by small firms to procurement contracts for supplies to his Department.

Mr. Trippier: In addition to previous measures to improve small firms' access to Government business, my Department recently published a new version of our booklet, "Tendering for Government Contracts". That gives an up-to-date account of what the main purchasing Departments buy, their basic procedures and whom to approach.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that initiative. What proportion of Government procurement goes to small firms? Do such figures as are available include sub-contracting by small firms?

Mr. Trippier: Only recently I authorised a study, which is being conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry, into the destination of sub-contracts as they are placed by major Ministry of Defence suppliers. I hope that that information will be available early next year, but in the middle of the year at the latest. That would improve the statistical base to which reference was made in an earlier question by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister see it as his job to do battle with other Government Departments, for example, to achieve a target for small businesses engaged in procurement from the the Government? What success does he have in such negotiations with other Departments?

Mr. Trippier: I do not know that I would use the word battle. That might be appropriate when referring to the relationship to which I referred, with the Ministry of Defence. If it was a battle, certainly we won it, and I was pleased with the response that I received from the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is now the Minister for Information Technology. It is a role of mine, as Minister with special responsibility for small firms, to cross departmental boundaries and try to encourage Departments to respond in the way that the Ministry of Defence responded.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that while it is helpful to provide information to small businesses to enable them to deal with the labryinth of

bureaucracy, that is not enough? Is he further aware that we need a change of attitude in his and other Departments to give a slight discrimination in favour of small businesses, instead of keeping to the old pattern, which many in the Departments tend to do?

Mr. Trippier: Broadly, I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps the impression has been given by the Government that we do not discriminate in favour of small firms, though I have heard it said by colleagues that we try to remove the disadvantages of size for small firms. In truth, we discriminate in favour of small firms. We have been doing so since 1979, are doing that now and will continue to do so. Many of our schemes are tailored only to the small firms sector. In some of the measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is, for instance, the small firms corporation tax rate, and 75 per cent. of the schemes which are referred to in "Support for Business", the new publication which we have issued, are targeted at the small firms sector and are not available to large firms as a whole. Indeed, nor shall they be, because small firms have the wealth and the employment creation potential.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What proportion of the contracts let by the Department of Trade and Industry are competitive contracts as against non-competitive contracts such as those let, say, to Aish and Company of Poole, which ripped off the Government through excess profit-taking and had to pay back £400,000 to the Department of Defence, and, indeed, must pay back more?

Mr. Trippier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to be familiar with the company to which he has referred. If he has a specific complaint, perhaps he would write to me or come to see me. I shall certainly have a look at it.

Hall Russell (Aberdeen)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Hall Russell, Shipbuilders, Aberdeen.

Mr. Norman Lamont: It remains the Government's intention to privatise Hall Russell.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister accept that his frustrations in trying to privatise Hall Russell are as nothing compared with the frustration of the work force over its lack of employment? Both stem from the same source, the shortage of security of orders. Will he therefore make it clear that from the Government's point of view there is no inhibition, prohibition or bar on Hall Russell obtaining a share of any non-naval shipbuilding orders which may be available? To make those possible contracts more commercially viable, w ill he make sure that that yard is classified as a yard that has the capacity at least of having access to the intervention fund?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the real problem is the shortage of orders, and it should not be confused with the issue of privatisation. As to whether Hall Russell ought to be a yard that seeks merchant orders, the hon. Gentleman will know that all but one of the orders that it has received in the last rive years have been military orders. It is a matter essentially for British Shipbuilders whether it regards the yard, if it remains within British Shipbuilders, as a defence yard or a merchant yard. Any


decision that British Shipbuilders makes, of course, has an impact on other yards and other merchant yards and on the orders that they must get. That has to be taken into account. As to the intervention fund, we shall be making a statement on that soon, but we have indicated that it is unlikely that, as a general rule, the intervention fund will be available to privatised warship yards.

Mr. Malone: In view of my hon. Friend's reply, can he confirm that the best long-term prospect for Hall Russell in securing naval and merchant orders will, indeed, be in the private sector, where it will be relatively unshackled? On a more general basis, can he tell the House whether he is satisfied with the progress that has been made in selling other warship building yards?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend that the yard is likely to have as good, if not better, security of employment by being in the private sector. It remains the position, of course, that Hall Russell is still pursuing certain other orders. There was the statement about the OPV3s in the defence debate the other day, and there are other tenders in which the yard is interested. As regards general progress of privatisation, my hon. Friend will know that Brooke Marine was sold in May. I am pleased to say that the sale of Yarrow to GEC has now been completed with the consideration previously announced and with the acceptance by British Shipbuilders of a small contingent liability, should further redundancies arise. The other yards will be on offer soon.

Mr. Wilson: On the question of Hall Russell, may I ask the Minister to accept that the yard has had a very high reputation for its activities and efficiency over the years, and that the confusion and uncertainty that exists about its permanent ownership cannot but make it very difficult for the management to secure the orders that are desperately needed to keep the yard going?

Mr. Lamont: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern, although, of course, the work load will continue until August 1986. As I have said, the yard is interested in certain other orders. The basic problem is the order book, not privatisation.

Mr. John Smith: Is it not clear to the Minister by now that the Government's desire to privatise the yard has added another layer of uncertainty and difficulty to the problems which the yard would have faced in any event? Would it not be wise for the Government not blindly to pursue privatisation but to reconsider whether the yard should be retained as part of British Shipbuilders? If they are not prepared to do that, will they change some of the rules and influence British Shipbuilders to ensure that a wide range of orders are available by broadening the capability of the yard? The Government can show their intention to BS because, after all, they are the authors of the privatisation policy, not British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Lamont: We must take into account — as, indeed, British Shipbuilders must—the position in other yards where jobs are at stake. There has been agreement on both sides of the House that the underlying problem is orders. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think that somehow the problem can be concealed if the yard is kept in the public sector.

Traditional Industries (Leicester)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to aid the traditional industries of Leicester.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): Firms in Leicester are eligible for assistance through my Department's national schemes of support.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not recognise that those schemes are wholly inadequate to meet the savage burden of unemployment which afflicts a city which was once very prosperous? What is needed is a specific undertaking to aid the traditional industries of Leicester, rather than the platitudes with which pleas have been greeted during the past six years.

Mr. Butcher: I do not agree that there is any longer any such thing as a traditional industry. Even those companies making traditional products are now using new production techniques, so, to that extent, they are newer industries.
On the question of the economic health of Leicester, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman took note of the following comment on Radio Leicester yesterday:
Leicester's knitwear industry has improved to such an extent that most firms will be able to guarantee their employees full time working until the end of the year, after their return from holiday fortnight.
Sec. Bill Boggen of the Knitwear Industry Association says there was confidence and optimistic atmosphere in the industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may have a vested interest in his doom and gloom statement, but I am satisfied that the schemes — for example, support for innovation — that are available to what he calls the traditional industries of Leicester are relevant and valuable.

Mr. Richard Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that Government policies have dramatically improved investment and productivity in industries such as those in Leicester? Would he care to build on that by having a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about bringing down interest rates whenever practicable to help the industries in Leicester?

Mr. Butcher: Interest rates are rightly a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is in the interests of industry and commerce generally that the Government should continue to reduce public expenditure so as to give my right hon. Friend as much room as possible to manoeuvre on interest rates.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems in Leicester outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) are absolute nonsense? Leicester is doing considerably better than it ever did before. Rate capping has come in and ensured that business men are now getting on with running their businesses. More jobs are appearing on the scene, and young and useful enterprise companies are now creating additional jobs. The only thing that Leicester actually needs is for the Government to get off our backs, for there to be less form-filling and for there to be continued help and advice from the small firms centre, which does so well.

Mr. Butcher: After today's exchanges, I am sure that the residents of Leicester will agree with me that it is my


hon. Friend who is doing his best to protect the interests of the city of Leicester. There is no mileage in peddling doom and gloom about any city.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of payments deficit with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Mr. Fletcher: Information on the United Kingdom balance of payments with individual countries is not available. In the period from January to May 1985 the United Kingdom had provisional crude trade deficits of £1,331 million with Japan, £76 million with South Korea and £184 million with Taiwan.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern of hon. Members of all parties about the difficulties that our exporters experience in getting into those markets. However, is he aware that the inconsistencies and unfairnesses in our own duties and those of our European partners often make our case far more difficult to argue? For example, is my hon. Friend aware that recently penal anti-dumping duties were imposed on certain importers of Japanese electronic typewriters? It just happened that one of those companies had duties in excess of 50 per cent. imposed while two other companies, the wholesale prices of which were similar, had no penal duties imposed on them at all. The reason was that those two companies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not give reasons.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that the two Japanese companies which had no duties imposed on them happened to be selling their products through Olivetti and Adler, their European distributors? As a result, British businesses are being charged extra for their electronic typewriters.

Mr. Fletcher: I should like to investigate the cases that my hon. Friend mentions. With regard to electronic typewriters, an anti-dumping case was opened against Japan in March 1984. The Commission found considerable evidence of dumping, and imposed definitive duties on imports of Japanese machines on 19 June last.

Mr. John David Taylor: Is it normal practice for the Government to encourage trade with a country from which they still withhold official recognition?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fallon: Instead of harping on about the difficulties of getting into those markets and lost orders, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to companies such as Davy McKee, which has just won a splended order in South Korea against Japanese opposition?

Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to do so, and to say that our exports to South Korea increased by almost 50 per cent. in the first four months of this year.

Mr. Madden: What steps are the Government taking to make sure that assurances given to British car component manufacturers following collaborative deals between British and Japanese motor vehicle producers are worth more than the paper they are written on?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that our car industry would enter into agreements with the Japanese which they, as British motor manufacturers, did not feel to be worth while.

Mr. Gould: What is the point of bleating about the Japanese if we are not prepared to compete with them seriously? As an example, what is the point of complaining, as the Prime Minister did, that the Japanese are holding the yen at an artificially low level when we are doing all that we can to hold the pound at an artificially high level against the yen through the use of damagingly high interest rates?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman was complaining that the pound was too low a short time ago.

Heavy Lorries

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the United Kingdom market for maximum weight heavy lorries has been gained by domestic manufacturers over each of the last 10 years.

Mr. Butcher: In 1984 domestic manufacturers had 41·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for heavier weight commercial vehicles. The corresponding share in 1975 was 61·9 per cent. I shall include in the Official Report a table showing figures for the past 10 years.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that that means a drop of 20 per cent. over that period? Does he recall that of the arguments put forward, particularly by the road lobby, for the increase in heavy lorry weights, one of the strongest was that it would increase the domestic manufacturers' base? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that those figures point to exactly the opposite having happened? Will he make sure that he nails any similar fallacy that may be used in current discussions about increasing heavy lorry weights?

Mr. Butcher: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest in heavy lorry weights. The major part of the fall in the British share of that market occurred from 1975 to 1979, when it went down by 13 per cent., at a time when industrial relations were particularly bad and productivity was particularly poor. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the European dimension and the effect that it may have on future product development of vehicles in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite that reduction, which, as we said, happened in the earlier stages of the decade, the amount of work and effort being put in by the management and work force at Leyland Vehicles—coincidentally in Leyland in my constituency — shows the strength that the company now has in world markets and the high quality of the trucks that it is now making?

Mr. Butcher: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the vigorous representations that he makes on behalf of the work force at Leyland vehicles. I also congratulate the company on the success of its new designs and on its new models, which are producing an increase in the market share for Leyland vehicles.

Following are the figures:—

Year
Domestic manufacturers' share (%) of the UK market for heavier weight commercial vehicles (1)


1975
61·9


1976
55·0


1977
54·6


1978
50·9


1979
48·9


1980
50·0


1981
50·8


1982
44·8


1983
42·4


1984
41·6

Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Note (1): Articulated vehicles over 29 tonnes and four-axled trucks.

Germany and Japan

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the deficit in manufacturing trade with Germany and Japan, respectively, in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

Mr. Tebbit: In the 12 months to May the crude deficit on our manufactures trade with the Federal Republic of Germany was £5·4 billion and with Japan £3·1 billion.

Mr. Taylor: Do these alarming German figures show that we may be making a serious mistake in trying to make Japan the scapegoat for our trading problems, when many of the complaints about Japan fall apart on careful examination? Is my right hon. Friend willing to make representations to the German Government, asking them what steps they are taking to reduce the deficit, particularly when a significant part of this stems from clear abuses of the Anglo-German trade agreement and of non-tariff barriers?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is on a bad point in being an apologist for Japan. Our policy is not to achieve a particular balance with each trading partner in each category of goods. Our quarrel with Japan is over its trading tactics, the barriers against imports—not just against the United Kingdom but against other countries — which we find almost impenetrable, the use of subsidy on exports to an excessive degree, and its control of the yen.
Germany is far more open, although she certainly has, as my hon. Friend says, quite disgraceful and blatant discrimination in some sectors, most notably, for example, against the insurance industry. My hon. Friend can be assured that I put that point most vigorously in the European Community and I hope that the Commission will eventually get up and begin to take some action over it. Lord Cockfield's White Paper may point in that direction.

Mr. Baldry: Is not the way to tackle deficits, whether with Germany, Japan or any other country, for Britain to seek to win a larger share of world markets? Is not the way to do this for the Government to assist manufacturers to win crucial export orders by assisting where necessary with loans to purchasers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is possible for us to do that without being dragged down into the subsidy quagmire?

Mr. Tebbit: In the trade between ourselves and Germany, happily, not a great deal of subsidy goes into the dumping of exports on each other. The way in which to get more of our exports into Germany, particularly our maufacturing exports, is to follow the example of Jaguar,

which, from a very poor position a little while ago, has been increasing its exports substantially by the simple expedient of producing what the German customer wants.

Mr. John Smith: What precise lessons have been learnt by the Government from the Bosporus bridge affair, and what changes in Government policy might we expect to see?

Mr. Tebbit: The lessons that we have learnt are that, first, we must look with caution upon Japanese Government statements until they are backed by Japanese Government action in the same direction as the policy statements. Secondly, our companies must try even harder to be thoroughly competitive in every direction, including their choice of partners in such important contracts. Finally, the Government, too, must make sure that we are ready, on hand, with a quick response, within sensible limits of subsidy and assistance to our exporters. That lesson is well known, and was successfully carried through in the way that we beat the Japanese to the Korean steel mill contract recently.

Business Expansion Scheme

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the geographical distribution of funds under the business expansion scheme to small firms.

Mr. Trippier: I am aware that many investments under the business expansion scheme have been located in the south-east and the midlands. I am keen to encourage greater use of the scheme in other parts of the country, and I am glad to note that more BES funds are now being launched outside London.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend's answer will be of great comfort to businesses in the north, Yorkshire and Humberside. Will he also consider whether there is scope within the business expansion scheme to enable companies to borrow sums of about £50,000? That could be of considerable assistance to them.

Mr. Trippier: The business expansion scheme is for equity investment from outside rather than for borrowing. Sometimes the supply of smaller amounts of capital is difficult because the procedure of appraisal and monitoring can be disproportionate. None the less, I am pleased that 30 per cent. of companies receiving BES investment received £50,000 or less, and that 50 per cent. received £100,000 or less. I do not suggest that we are complacent about the position. We must increase awareness of the benefits of the scheme, and we must encourage the start-up of more regional or sub-regional funds.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the learning time for people to understand the schemes launched by his Department is longer than he probably expected? Does he further agree that we need an assurance that schemes such as the business expansion scheme and the loan guarantee scheme will be left in place long enough for people to understand fully the best way to exploit them?

Mr. Trippier: The learning curve is longer than I expected. Sometimes I think that I must say something seven times, and then people are on to it in a flash. It is important to increase awareness of some of our schemes,


which we have simplified, wherever we can. The two schemes to which my hon. Friend referred have proved to be beneficial and are much appreciated by small firms.

Bus Building Industry

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last had discussions with representatives of the bus building industry; and what subjects he discussed.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation from Leyland Bus earlier this year. Other right hon. and hon. Friends as well as officials from my Department have maintained regular contact with representatives of the industry.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that before the publication of the Transport Bill there was almost no consultation with the bus building industry, and that the companies and workers in that industry are almost unanimous in their opposition to the Bill, which spells disaster for the domestic market for new buses? In view of that gross dereliction of duty by the Department of Transport, is it not about time that a Minister with responsibility for industry fought for the interests of workers in firms such as Walter Alexanders in my constituency, whose export record proves that it is capable of building the best double-decker buses in the world?

Mr. Butcher: As a Minister with responsibility for industry, I must also take into account the fact that, even before the current measures were mooted, there was a trend of declining production and output in the entire bus building industry. That could not have been allowed to continue. As to the impact of the legislation, the detail is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that we have discussed many matters with representatives of the industry, including the long-term decline in bus manufacturing and how the Government's transport proposals can arrest that decline.

New Businesses (North-East)

Mr. Fallon: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have been established in the north-east since 1979.

Mr. Norman Lamont: In the north-east, an estimated 18,632 new businesses started up in the four years from 1980 to 1983.

Mr. Fallon: Does that figure not show the north-east to be a region of opportunity, and should not that fact be shoved down the throats of the doom and gloom merchants in the north? How many of those businesses still exist, and what is the net surplus?

Mr. Lamont: From the end of 1979 till the end of 1983, taking into account the demise of businesses, the stock of businesses in the region increased by about 8·4 per cent. That is the effect of the creation of new businesses. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Too

often, the north-east is portrayed as an area where people do not wish to start new businesses and where there are no entrepreneurs. Those figures show that there is much inventiveness and innovation in the area.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister tell the House how many businesses in the north-east have collapsed since May 1979? Although I realise that it is not his direct responsibility, does he agree that it would be much more beneficial to the region to keep pits open—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the main question.

Mr. Dormand: The next part of my question will be relevant, Mr. Speaker. How many new businesses of the sort about which the Minister is talking will be needed to absorb the 1,200 miners who were made redundant from Hordern colliery in my constituency, and the 250 coke work employees who were made redundant at Hawthorn in my constituency? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Employment to do something about it?

Mr. Lamont: As I have said, there is a substantial surplus of new businesses—of births over deaths. There has been an 8·4 per cent. addition to the stock of businesses. The answer to creating more jobs to cope with redundancies in the coal industry is not keeping open uneconomic pits, but creating new enterprises and new viable jobs that can last without subsidy.

British Leyland (Bathgate)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has had from West Lothian district council on the future of the British Leyland site at Bathgate.

Mr. Butcher: None, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the primary responsibility in this matter rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: What help can the district council expect from the Department to retain the Bathgate site for manufacturing units?

Mr. Butcher: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the context of that question, I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Development Agency, Locate in Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State are anxious to see that manufacturing facilities are continued on that site.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Food Imitations (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Post Office

Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the de-regulation of sub-post offices and for connected purposes.
Before 1895, in order to become a sub-postmaster one had to be nominated by a local Member of Parliament. That system was rightly brought to an end. I submit that the present system, whereby a local head postmaster has an absolute veto over the establishment of new sub-post office facilities is equally unfair and must be changed.
The Bill is not concerned with the privatisation of the Post Office, welcome though that might be to many hon. Members. The Bill is concerned only with the deregulation of sub-post offices which, almost without exception, are already part of the private enterprise economy. The Bill will encourage the establishment of more sub-post offices and remove from the Post Office the arbitrary power to prevent new sub-post offices from being established.
Sub-post offices are a national institution. There are over 20,000 of them and they represent an important part of the social and economic fabric of the country. The 9,500 sub-post offices in the urban areas are every bit as important as the rural sub-post offices.
In the past 10 years, nearly 2,000 sub-post offices have closed and the Post Office is presently engaged in a strategy to close a further 1,000. Only with deregulation can this trend of declining service be reversed. If nothing is done and the Post Office is allowed to impose upon the public the so-called standard, first set 40 years ago—that post offices should not be closer than one mile apart — many more sub-offices will be closed, to the consternation and dismay of the customers.
The one-mile standard is arbitrary and the reason why the number of post offices has not been reduced to this standard is that the closures have normally been considered only when sub-postmasters retire or resign. What is now so sinister, however, is that profitable sub-post offices are being bribed by the Post Office to close. Even more odious is the spurious justification that Government financial targets are the cause of those closures. If financial arguments are to be used, Crown post offices rather than the sub-post offices should be coming under pressure. The latest figures show that sub-post offices provide 62 per cent. of Post Office business at 50 per cent. of the cost.
I can best illustrate the urgent need for the Bill with a topical example from Southampton. Last Friday, the north Woolston sub-post office closed and later this month the Pinegrove road sub-post office will also close. The two sub-offices were less than half a mile apart and were paying out each week 755 pensions and 430 other allowances. They enjoyed total business amounting to 405,000 units—to use the Post office jargon for the basis of remuneration of sub-postmasters.
I am informed by the Post Office that every sub-postmaster receives minimum remuneration based on 21,500 units but that it is difficult for the Post Office to make a profit when business is that low. In Southampton, however, we are talking about 19 times that minimum level of business, so the demand for the services is clearly

there. One of my constituents, Mr. Eric Shephard, wrote to the local head postmaster asking if he could open a sub-post office to meet the demand but was told that he would not be allowed to do so because, allegedly, there were too many sub-post offices already. On what criterion was that decision taken? It was clearly not the criterion of satisfying the customers as the petition against the north Woolston closure was signed by more than 1,000 people.
Many customers would accept the closure of sub-pest offices due to lack of demand or because they were unprofitable, but the two offices that I have mentioned are to be closed only because the Post Office has offered substantial bribes to the proprietors to induce them to cease trading. This came to my notice only when I found that, despite the substantial petition that I had received and a delay by the Post Office in closing one office, the proprietor has been pressing the Post Office to close it as soon as possible because he wanted the money. I calculate that about £37,000 has been paid out by the Post Office to ensure that two sub-post offices in Southampton are closed. That makes no sense and the Bill would deal with that mischief. For one of the sub-post office owners the inducement to close was even greater, as the same person owned the nearest alternative sub-post office and would thus benefit from much of the custom generated if no competition were allowed to develop.
The Bill would not prevent sub-post offices from closing, but it would allow anyone wishing to meet consumer demand to open a sub-post office at his own expense and to run it on the same terms as other sub-post offices. It would also remove any incentive for the Post Office to use its profits to buy out profitable retail outlets. The Bill will make a presumption in favour of anyone wishing to open a sub-post office who has suitable secure premises and is a fit and proper person with adequate training. It would set up a licensing authority independent of the Post Office to consider applications and to allow applicants to tender for socially necessary but uneconomic offices. It will also prevent the Post Office from restricting the opening hours of sub-post offices and from imposing other restrictions on sub-post masters which operate against the public interest.
Deregulation will prove that, in practice, the one-mile-apart standard for urban post offices is inadequate for the customer. In short, the Bill will take the power from the Post Office and give it back to the customers — the pensioners, the families with young children and all who treasure the personal service that sub-post offices invariably give.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Chope, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mr. Tony Baldry.

POST OFFICE

Mr. Christopher Chope accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the deregulation of sub-post offices and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 July. [Bill 181.]

Orders of the Day — Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill

Order for Second reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This House has had only too much cause in recent times to express its dismay and disgust about what has been happening to the game of football in this country. Innocent people far too often have been put in fear by rampaging young thugs who have deliberately come for a fight, and not to see the game at all. English supporters abroad have acquired the reputation of thugs and hooligans — so much so that as a result of what occurred in Brussels English clubs have been banned from competing overseas. Trouble inside grounds deters peaceful, genuine supporters, especially families, from going to matches. The series of appalling and shameful events in the second half of last season—at Luton, at Birmingham and of course in Brussels, and elsewhere — has shaken the whole nation.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in the House on 3 June that the Government intend to take urgent action on a number of fronts to restore the good name of British football and to make football grounds safe places for decent people. This Bill is one such measure. It cannot solve the whole problem, but it can make an important contribution to doing so. It is concerned with the control of drink and drunkenness. There is widespread agreement that alcohol is a major contributory factor in violent and disorderly behaviour in football grounds, and it is this aspect of the problem that the Bill deals with. I have discussed its main provisions with the Opposition and the alliance parties, and readily recognise that they, and indeed the whole House, are as determined as the Government to do everything possible to ensure speedy and effective action. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for their helpful comments and for the valuable contributions they have made to working out these proposals. I much appreciate their support and the fact that as a result we are able to approach this problem on a non-partisan basis.
The time scale in which the House is invited to approve the Bill is, I recognise, shorter than the House would normally expect. I regret that that should be necessary. The Government's intention is that the Bill's provisions should be in force before the start of the next football season. Time is therefore short, but I trust that the House will agree that action is needed now. We must take urgent action to do what is in our power to prevent the repetition of the disgraceful and tragic events of last season.
The Bill is broadly based on part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. It varies from it in some respects, the most important of which I shall deal with shortly. The Scottish provisions have proved their value. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has

said that it regards the 1980 Act as a major step towards improving football spectator behaviour. The Scottish Football Association and the Scottish League have said that, since the introduction of the Act, the atmosphere inside grounds has improved beyond measure.
Let us be under no illusions: the Bill will not solve all the problems of hooliganism. That requires other action as well, and not only by the. Government. But I am convinced, in the light of the Scottish experience, that it will make an important contribution to securing a real improvement in the standard Of crowd behaviour.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Without wishing to hold up the Scots as paragons, does the Home Secretary recollect that there is a special problem in Scotland? The clubs that have made major alterations, namely, Rangers, Celtic and Aberdeen, in the light of the Ibrox disaster have a great deal of money compared with the other, smaller clubs. Where will the money for all this come from? The Scottish clubs that made the necessary improvements were the big and the rich clubs.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman's question relates very much more to the safety requirements than to the problems covered by the Bill. Nevertheless, I accept that an element of financial restraint and limitation is involved.
The Bill applies to sports grounds and sporting events designated by the Secretary of State. My immediate intention is to designate only soccer grounds and matches. I intend to designate the grounds of all football league clubs, Wembley and any other stadium which might be used for international fixtures. I intend also to designate non-league grounds when they are used for matches with football league clubs—for example, in the FA Cup. At present hooliganism associated with other sports is not on a scale which makes the tough measures in this Bill necessary. Everything possible must be done to ensure that that remains the case. Nevertheless, it is right now to take powers which can be extended to other sports if the need arises. This is what has been done in the Scottish legislation.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Home Secretary aware that the big difference between the Scottish legislation and what he is proposing now is that. every club in Scotland, with the exception of Clydebank, was dry and had no licensed facilities, whereas England and Wales have lived relatively happily with licensed clubs for many years?

Mr. Brittan: I had intended to deal with that matter, so perhaps I should proceed.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is there not a major loophole in that, when the Home Secretary designates a ground, it must have a capacity of more than 10,000? If a club reduces its capacity to less than 10,000 by closing two sides of the ground, for example, would it not escape designation?

Mr. Brittan: I am glad to be able to clarify the matter. That is the case under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, but not with this legislation. There is a separate process of designation governed by separate definitions.
Some of the worst problems associated with drinking and drunkenness occur on "football specials"—coaches and trains taking supporters to and from matches—and at the entrances to grounds. Indeed, the Association of Chief Police Officers considers that this is where the main


problem lies. Supporters drink on the way to grounds and arrive there already under the influence of alcohol. The Bill contains tough measures to deal with this — it prohibits the possession of alcohol and drunkenness on special trains and coaches. Moreover, transport operators, hirers and their employees will commit offences if they permit the carriage of alcohol on such trains and coaches. Further offences are created in respect of the possession of alcohol, or drunkenness, when entering or trying to enter a ground. I regard these new controls on transport and on entry to grounds as perhaps the most important part of the Bill, since they should reduce the likelihood of supporters arriving at the ground already under the influence of alcohol.
I said earlier that there are some differences between our proposals and the Scottish Act. The significant ones relate to the sale and possession of alcohol in grounds. The Scottish Act bans the possession—and therefore the sale —of alcohol in any public area of a designated ground, but it permits possession, although not sale, in places within the ground which are not open to the public and not within sight of the pitch. The effect of this Bill is that, at the start of the new season, the sale of alcohol will similarly be prohibited in football grounds in England and Wales. It will also be an offence to possess alcohol at any place from which the match can be viewed, as in Scotland. In addition, it is proposed that subsequently, under tightly controlled conditions, clubs with a good record of safety and orderly conduct may be permitted, on application twice a season to a magistrates court, to sell alcohol, but only at approved places out of sight of the pitch. I should make it clear that this requirement will apply to all sales, whether to directors, supporters' clubs, social clubs or members of the public. In each case, applications to the court will be needed, and in each case there will be stringent provisions to stop the sale whenever that is necessary.
There are two main reasons for the variations from the Scottish provision. The first is largely historical. Scottish football clubs were "dry" before the 1980 Act because they were not licensed to sell alcohol. The main impact of the Scottish Act was therefore on people arriving drunk at grounds and on people taking in drink which they had bought outside. English clubs have a somewhat different tradition. Indeed, for some, sale of drink has been a source of considerable revenue, often use for ground improvements. So we are starting from a different point from our Scottish colleagues in 1980.
But that would not of course be anything like sufficient justification for shrinking from a total ban if that were necessary to deal with the problem effectively. These clubs would just have to forgo the revenue. But the fact is that the Association of Chief Police Officers, with its members' extensive experience of policing the grounds of major league clubs, has told us clearly that it does not favour a total ban. In its view, strictly controlled drinking inside grounds is easier to police than increased and more dispersed drinking in pubs and in the streets away from the ground.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would it be a fair assumption to suggest that the Home Secretary is putting it to the House that some people will be boozing inside football grounds? If one has enough money to have a little

box with a little fridge, one can drink as much as one likes. Is it not also worthy of consideration that on a Wednesday afternoon we are talking about stopping people drinking on the terraces at football matches when at the same time on the terrace here at the House of Commons, where I was a few minutes ago, about 30 Members were boozing who will probably booze all day until the Vote at 10 o'clock tonight?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has completely misunderstood the impact of the legislation. Whereas drinking on the House of Commons terrace may enable the hon. Gentleman to make a cheap point, he knows perfectly well that we are dealing with a particular problem that has brought shame on the country and requires urgent action. As for his last point, had the hon. Gentleman listened to my explanation, he would know that application can be made to the magistrates court for an exemption enabling bars to be opened to members of the public so long as they are not within sight of the pitch. I shall now continue with my explanation of the matter.
In view of the considerations to which I have referred, the Bill makes it possible for magistrates to issue an order permitting the sale of alcohol in certain areas of the ground if they are satisfied that this would not be detrimental to the orderly conduct and safety of spectators. That is a paramount requirement. The courts are asked to have regard, in particular, to the arrangements for the admission of spectators and for regulating their conduct, but it will not be possible for an order to apply to an area from which the pitch can be viewed directly. This is because the Bill contains an overriding offence banning the possession of alcohol in such areas. In any case, the police will, of course, be able to put to the court objections to the issue of an order. The net effect of these changes is that, if, and only if, the magistrates authorise it, alcohol will be able to be sold to members of the public but only in areas out of sight of the pitch—for example, in the behind-stands bars which exist in many grounds. In no circumstances will drink be permissible on the terraces or stands.
Moreover, the police will be able to apply for a revocation or variation of an exemption order and if there is no time to apply to the court, a police inspector will himself be able to revoke the order temporarily. In addition to all that, if disorder none the less arises, any bar can be closed by the police forthwith at the match itself. The limited element of flexibility that I have described will make it possible to recognise the good record of some clubs and to provide an incentive for others to do better. Nevertheless, as compared with the current position in England and Wales, the proposals in the Bill embody a system of rigorous controls which will have an impact on all clubs and, in some cases, may lead to a considerable loss of revenue. In particular, the Bill will ban the possession and sale of alcohol in private boxes and restaurants from which the pitch can be viewed.

Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary has already told the House that many people arrive at football grounds in an alcoholic stupor. Should he not therefore ensure that more authorities can implement the existing power to ban alcohol in areas around the grounds? Will he also tell the House that, when the opportunity for international matches returns, duty-free liquor will be banned from sale on ferries to and from matches?

Mr. Brittan: That matter will have to be considered at the appropriate time. On the first point, the hon. Member is right in the sense that it is open to the police to apply to the courts for a suspension of licensing provisions relating to public houses in the vicinity of grounds, if they anticipate disorder. It is also open to them to make a similar application in relation to off licences. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to draw that to the attention of the House.
I understand the concern of clubs, some with a good record of crowd behaviour, about the prospect of a considerable loss of revenue, but the need to do everything we can to minimise the risk of disorder must prevail. The proposals in the Bill for the control of alcohol inside grounds are tough, but I believe that they are fair, and that they strike the right balance between the need to prevent disorder and our desire not to penalise good clubs and respectable spectators.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Home Secretary has just said, properly, that he understands some of the financial implications for clubs. If we are considering the future of football and if this is a Bill for all time, it is important to understand the financial effects of the proposals on football clubs. Does the Home Secretary dispute the figure given to me by the football league that this amounts in essence to a fine of £4 million? We will deal with that in Committee later, but how does the Home Secretary expect clubs to make up the £4 million that they need to run the clubs and to carry out community sports policy on football grounds?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the figure for one moment.

Mr. Howell: What is the Home Secretary's figure?

Mr. Brittan: If the right hon. Gentleman asks a question, I assume that he wants an answer and if he is prepared to listen, he will have it. I do not accept the figure he gave, for two reasons. First, that figure is based on an estimate of the number of people who will give up private boxes. That assumption is dependent upon the impossibility of converting those boxes into such a form as to comply with the law. It is also dependent upon an assumption that the only interest of the people who take those boxes is to drink rather than to watch football.
Secondly, I do not accept the estimate that the right hon. Gentleman has given because that estimate fails to take account of the other factor — that, if we make football something that can be watched safely, revenue will increase because far more people will be prepared to go to football matches. In particular, families who were driven away by the spectacle of violence will return to football matches. I have no doubt that it is because the right hon. Gentleman accepts the necessity to take these measures that he has been so helpful in assisting the Government to come forward with proposals, the support of which by the Opposition I very much welcome.

Mr. Max Madden: The Home Secretary may know that I was in contact with Department last week to ask what the impact of the Bill would be on Bradford City football club which in the coming season will be playing its matches on a rugby ground. If he cannot give me the information now, could he arrange for his hon. Friend to give it when he contributes to the debate? Secondly, before the Home

Secretary sits down, can he say when a progress report will be given to the House by the working party on safety? Can he give an assurance that we will get a statement before the House goes into recess?

Mr. Brittan: The last point that the hon. Gentleman raised does not relate to the Bill, but it is the intention of Mr. Justice Popplewell to give an interim report at an early date, as I have said he was most welcome to do. On the particular Bradford point, I will seek to get a response to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

Mr. John Carlisle: Before he leaves that point of drinking out of sight in the sponsor's box, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that this is going to make a very serious difference to many clubs, particularly those which are proposing to build new boxes. I take his point that, under the new proposals, those boxes must be built in such a way that drinking will not be seen. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) has said, in some of the places where football is being watched, alcohol is necessary because the football on the pitch is so bad. He must understand and not underestimate the fact that this brings a very large revenue into the clubs and that there will be a considerable cost to clubs, particularly to the club of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), in installing one-way glass.

Mr. Brittan: I accept there is a potential loss of revenue for those clubs that wish to set up the kind of boxes from which the pitch can be viewed. As my hon. Friend has fairly pointed out, the clubs concerned can adapt their arrangements and make them comply with the Bill so that the drinking does not take place within sight of the pitch. As the House will be aware from the competing interventions, we are talking about a balance. It would be possible simply to say, "No drink at all, in any circumstances." That would be too damaging to those football clubs which derive an income from drink and where it can be controlled safely. On the other hand, to say that we will allow drinking to take place within sight of the pitch would go too far in the opposite direction. This balance is the right one. I shall now go through the main provisions of the Bill.
Clause 1 concerns travel to and from matches on coaches, minibuses and football special trains. It creates three new offences: first, it is an offence to possess alcohol on the vehicle or train; secondly, it is an offence for the hirer or operator or his servant or agent knowingly to cause or permit alcohol to be carried; and thirdly, it is an offence for a passenger to be drunk. The clause will catch travel in England and Wales, not only to English and Welsh grounds, but also — this is important — to designated matches abroad and to matches in Scotland which have been designated under the 1980 Scottish Act.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a growing practice among the unofficial supporters' clubs, like the Inter-City Firm, for example —no doubt he knows quite a lot about such organisations—to privately hire mini-vans and coaches and drive themselves to football grounds? I assume they will take their alcohol with them. Is that covered in his Bill?

Mr. Brittan: Yes, if it requires to be licensed, but it is not possible to cover what is the equivalent of a private car.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Clause 1 relates to those operating trains. The Home Secretary made the important point that it will catch supporters and the staff on the trains travelling to matches in Scotland. Clause 10 is the relevant clause relating to Scotland and does not cover the staff. I am not in favour of the staff on trains being liable under this legislation. What will happen when the train is not travelling from England to Scotland, but from Scotland to England? When the train is in Scotland it is covered by the Scottish legislation, which does not deal with the staff on the train. When the train is in England it is covered by the English legislation, which does deal with the staff. Is this not confusing?

Mr. Brittan: I am aware of the point and I should like to look into it, because it may be a matter which requires clarification. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 2 concerns behaviour in the ground or on entry to it. It is an offence to be drunk while entering or trying to enter the ground, or any part of it. We have gone somewhat further than our Scottish colleagues in this respect—the hon. Gentleman may be interested in that —in that under the 1980 Act the offence of drunkenness can be committed only in public areas of the ground and areas from which the game can be viewed. We propose no such limitation. It is also an offence to possess alcohol or a controlled container on entry to the ground or in any part of the ground from which the game can be directly viewed. The throwing of missiles, especially bottles and cans, is all too common and can cause serious injury to innocent people. This provision in effect bans all bottles and cans from the stands and terraces.

Mr. Ashton: Can the Home Secretary tell us why this applies just to football? Is he aware that, at a championship boxing match two years ago, people were urinating in empty lager cans and throwing them at the ring and causing a lot of damage? There was mayhem on that night. Why is he not covering boxing in the same way as football?

Mr. Brittan: The fact that the hon. Gentleman refers to a single example two years ago illustrates the point well. If, sadly, the sort of scenes one has seen so frequently in football matches became prevalent in any other sport, one would have to consider the extension of the legislation to cover that. Although the hon. Gentleman can give an important example, violence of the kind we have seen on the football grounds is not habitual elsewhere.

Mr. Peter Snape: On the question of consuming alcohol in an area from which the pitch can be seen, is the Home Secretary aware that, at West Bromwich Albion's ground there are 57 executive boxes? Would it be possible under this legislation for someone to sit in one of those boxes in full view of the pitch and consume Coca-Cola or even Perrier water? Would that not be likely to inflame people in other parts of the ground who will not know from a distance whether or not someone is consuming alcohol?

Mr. Brittan: That is not a real problem. They will certainly be able to drink Perrier water if that is what they wish.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Not Perrier.

Mr. Brittan: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister points out, they might be wiser to choose a similar sparkling English product.

Mr. Skinner: What about claret?

Mr. Brittan: Claret will be caught out. The hon. Gentleman's concern is fully met, and I am able to assure him that the ban on claret drinking in sight of the pitch is one that has the full acquiescence of all parties in the House. Perhaps I could proceed.
Clause 3 to 5 and the schedule concern the sale of alcohol in licensed or registered club premises inside the ground when a match is being played. That includes a period of two hours before the start of the match and one hour after the final whistle. During that time, no alcohol may be sold unless the magistrates court has granted an exemption order. I have explained how that works. As I have said, the court must be satisfied in granting an order about the likely consequences for public safety and orderly behaviour. The order may be revoked or varied by the court, either generally or for a particular match. There is power for a police inspector to suspend an order at short notice for a particular match. This would provide for the situation in which, for example, the police received information on a Saturday morning that troublesome supporters of the away team were on the their way to the afternoon's match.
Clause 4 provides that the normal duration of an exemption order is five months. The relevance of that—I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Gorton for assisting us in coming to that period—is that this means that clubs will need to apply for an order and thereby satisfy the court about its arrangements for ensuring safety and good order at least twice every season. Clause 4 and the schedule lay down procedures for making applications for orders, which include in every case the notification of the chief officer of police and the local authority.
Before leaving this part of the Bill, I should say that while clubs will be able to apply for exemption orders as soon as the Bill comes into force, it will take some time for applications to be dealt with. Therefore, there will be a period after commencement during which no club whose ground has been designated will be able to sell alcohol at a match.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Leicester City football club sent me a telex message today about this. It feels that it will no longer be able to serve alcohol in its executive boxes. They are screened from the public, but they overlook the pitch. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the club will be able to appeal, or does it have nothing to worry about? If it must appeal, how long will it have to wait?

Mr. Brittan: If the pitch can be seen from the boxes, I am afraid that the club will have to reconstruct its boxes for the possession of alcohol to be permissible. However, if the boxes are not covered by that absolute ban, it will be open to the club to apply to the magistrates court for an exemption order. But, as I have explained, for a short time at the beginning of the next football season all league club games and international fixtures will be dry.
It is not possible to say exactly how long it will take for an exemption order to be issued in any particular case, but it cannot be less than 28 days, which is the minimum period laid down in the Bill, between the application to the


court and the hearing of the case. Therefore, it is likely to be September before any sale of drink at designated grounds can be resumed. This will mean — it is a positive advantage and not just an administrative consequence of the procedures — that in considering applications courts will be able to take account of each club's track record in the opening weeks of the season.
Clause 5 provides a right of appeal to the Crown court against a decision by a magistrates court in connection with an order. Clause 6 empowers a constable in uniform to close bars in a ground if trouble breaks out or is threatened during the period of a match. Clause 7 gives the police the necessary powers to enforce the Bill's provisions. Clause 8 prescribes penalties, and clause 9 sets out the definitions. Clause 10 amends part V of the Scottish Act.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What will be the position of Berwick Rangers, whose ground is situated in an English town but which plays in the Scottish league? To which legislation will it be subject?

Mr. Brittan: Its ground will be subject to the English legislation.
Clause 10 amends part V of the Scottish Act. It extends controls under the Act to trains, which are not caught at present under the 1980 Act, as well as public service vehicles. It enables the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate matches overseas, and it applies the Act to matches designated under the present Bill so that travel in Scotland en route to designated matches in England and Wales and abroad will be caught.
It is a matter of deep regret that we should have to be considering such measures today. I believe that the whole House and the whole country would infinitely prefer it if they were not necessary, but there is no doubt that they are necessary. Football is a great national game which gives pleasure to millions. We cannot tolerate the mindless violence and hooliganism that now disfigure it. I believe that the measures that we are discussing today are in the interests of law-abiding supporters, the clubs themselves and everybody who wants to be able to walk freely about his town on a Saturday without fear or hindrance.

Mr. John Carlisle: Can my right hon. and learned Friend emphasise one very important point? Nowhere in the Bill is the word "football" mentioned. Will he confirm that the Bill is intended for designated football clubs and football alone? Perhaps he will explain that should he or any successor of his decide that such measures are necessary for other sports such as cricket or rugby, he will have to come back to the House and seek approval for such sports to be designated—or will they be covered under this Bill's provisions?

Mr. Brittan: I said earlier that at the moment it was the Government's intention to apply it to football and not to other sports. However, the Bill provides for the procedure to apply to other sports.
Our objective must be to make football grounds safe places for peaceful citizens to go and take their families to enjoy a great sport. The Bill will not in itself and alone secure that objective, but I believe that in dealing with the problem of alcohol in relation to football it will take us one important step towards that aim.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his acknowledgement of the co-operation of the Opposition in this legislation and for the consultation which took place. I think we all agree that it would have been more satisfactory if there had been additional time for such consultation. Nevertheless, it was genuine and I appreciate the substantial concessions which the Government have made to our point of view—concessions which are included in the published Bill, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has named one of them.
Naturally, there are parts of the Bill with which the Opposition are still dissatisfied, and I have no doubt that that dissatisfaction will be voiced during the debate. However, the Opposition will assist in the early enactment of the legislation.
The Bill stems from the interest which the Prime Minister began to show four months ago in the problem of hooliganism at football matches. I say "hooliganism at football matches" rather than "football holiganism" because I believe that this kind of hooliganism exists in our society quite independently of football. Its manifestation at football grounds arouses special concern because such disturbances are highly visible through being concentrated in one place, and a place, moreover, which is very likely to be the location of television cameras on a day and time of the week that are known in advance.
As we know, the Prime Minister first took an interest in this problem after the disgraceful scenes at the Millwall— Luton match in March. She saw those scenes on the television screen and decided that something must be done about them. The Sunday Telegraph reported after that event
A 'tougher and abrasive' atmosphere is reported in Downing Street.
There was a flurry of action after that event. Meetings were held with representatives of the sport. A group of senior Ministers, described in some quarters as a task force, was set up and appears to have met several times.
At the beginning of April the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for sport, issued a list of priorities, and that list seemed to turn into the Government's policy on this problem. The Prime Minister has repeated it in the House, and the Minister with responsibility for sport himself reiterated it in its entirety less than three months ago.
There has been all this bustle of activity, but, four months after we first heard of the concern of the Prime Minister, all that the Government have to show is this Bill. We must hope that the Bill will do some good. For that reason, the Opposition sought to improve it and will do nothing to prevent or to delay its passage.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman has just made an inadvertent mistake in saying that the Government have done nothing else. It is not for me to give the House a list of the actions, but a specific one is the setting in hand of the procedure of designation of third and fourth division clubs under the 1975 Act. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should allow himself to say that this legislation is all that has been done.

Mr. Kaufman: We have seen the designation of the grounds, but I was under the impression that that designation came about following the disaster at Bradford


and was intended to deal primarily with the dreadful questions of ground safety that arose as a result of the Bradford disaster.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is not right in that respect, as was said publicly at the time.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I shall deal with some of the other matters to which we have referred. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be too sensitive when I say that this piece of legislation is the only item that has come before the House to deal with the matter. There is a list of other matters, to which the Government have referred. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would give us a progress report on them.

Mr. Madden: When I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech I referred to the working party under the Minister with responsibility for sport which is considering safety, and asked whether the Government would make a financial contribution to clubs to improve safety. Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the recess there needs to be a statement on the recommendations of the working party and, more important, what financial contribution the Government will make to enable clubs to make their grounds safe?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has consistently advanced that case since the disaster that took place in his city, and I shall deal with the question of financial assistance before I sit down.
I am sure that I am right and not misattributing anything to the Home Secretary in saying that even the Bill's sponsors are not completely satisfied with it, which is why the Home Secretary has stated his willingness to reexamine it and, if necessary, to change it after its operation has been monitored and before further legislation is introduced.
I, like the Government, have been in touch with both the football interests and the police. The football interests argue, and the Football Association has argued most recently in a letter which I received this morning, that the legislation's implications have been ill thought out. The financial implications for some clubs are undeniably serious. When I visited the Tottenham Hotspur ground yesterday, the club told me that implementation of the Bill could cost it about £600,000. If the Home Secretary disagrees with the £4 million figure suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), perhaps the Minister of State will offer us an alternative estimate when he replies to the debate.
I am sure that the impact of the legislation on individual clubs has not been considered. The Government will not deny that the Bill will undoubtedly cause difficulties for clubs by adding to their burdens of stewarding. The exclusions in the Bill will impose a great burden on stewards, as one realises if one considers the nature of voluntary stewards at football grounds. The police, who have been good enough to give me their views on the matter, agree that the Bill will cause problems for them. However, we have only the Bill to tackle the problem, and we must hope that it will be successful, in the interests of the country and of the sport.
I shall now deal with other items on the Government's list. From the Prime Minister's comments in the House and

press briefings, we know that she is keen on the extension of closed circuit television to more grounds. This could undoubtedly be of assistance in crowd control. A month ago, after the Brussels disaster, the Prime Minister said in her statement that agreement had been reached on the acceleration of the installation of closed circuit television, but today the Home Secretary said nothing about its progress. As the new season is only six weeks away, it would be helpful if the Government would tell us what progress is being made in the installation of closed circuit television.
In the same statement the Prime Minister said that the proposals in the public order White Paper could be of assistance. She said of the White Paper:
The proposals on assemblies in the open air will considerably strengthen the powers available to the police to guard against the risks of disorder.
There are two problems with that. First, we have no idea when the legislation will be introduced, let alone passed, and most, if not all, of the next football season may elapse before it is available for use by the police. Secondly, the proposals in the White Paper are profoundly disturbing to many people because of their limitations on free speech and peaceful and orderly public assembly. When the legislation is drafted, a careful distinction must be drawn between action against hooliganism, which action we all support, and attempted and unacceptable restrictions on open-air public meetings if it is to have a chance of being publicly acceptable. The Prime Minister also said:
I shall be discussing urgently with the football authorities proposals for the introduction of a practical scheme of membership schemes, either on a club or national basis, proposals for far more all-ticket matches and stricter controls or, in some cases, a ban on visiting spectators." — [Official Report. 3 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 22.]
Chelsea football club has sent me a copy of a letter which it has sent to the Metropolitan police, in which it insists that all-ticket matches are impracticable. Have the Government examined that further, and do they accept the views of Chelsea football club and others on that issue? The letter states:
We strongly believe that all-ticket matches are impractical, especially in the case of derby games. Firstly, it is impossible to distinguish between the respective supporters and secondly because ticket touts 'make a killing' and do not care to whom they sell tickets. This defeats the whole object of the exercise.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that the trouble occurred at the Luton-Millwall match because it was a replay? No one knows when a first game will end in a draw and a replay, or any number of them, will have to be fitted in during the following four or five days. On those occasions, printing and distributing tickets is impossible.

Mr. Kaufman: On such a matter, the problem for most Members of Parliament and Home Office civil servants as distinct from specialists, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath and others, is that the complexities which affect football clubs are not easily apparent to them. I am not denigrating Home Office civil servants, with whom I soon hope to be working closely. I visited Manchester City football ground last Saturday, Tottenham Hotspur's ground yesterday, and I have had discussions with others. If one visits the grounds and sees the extraordinary complexities involved in the admission of fans, policing, turnstiles, the administration of closed circuit television and the availability and printing of tickets, one realises that there are no easy answers. That


is why I quoted Chelsea football club's point, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) reinforces that.
In reply to an Adjournment debate, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). the Minister with responsibility for sport told the House that he had asked football authorities to report back to him within six weeks on a practical scheme for membership cards.
That six weeks' limit elapsed more than a month ago. May we be told what has been achieved in terms of working out what the Minister said — and what the Prime Minister repeated, using his words—was needed, namely, a practical scheme for membership cards? So far we have heard nothing more from the Government on the subject, though we have heard from the clubs and the police. They do not believe that such a scheme can work.
A conference of chief constables was held recently under the chairmanship of the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. Jim Anderton, which rejected the idea of an identity card scheme for football supporters. Mr. Anderton said that clubs which tried to exclude people without cards would be entering a legal minefield.
I do not know whether the Home Secretary has received an excellent paper produced by Chelsea football club entitled, "Hooliganism, Football and Society". He must have seen it. because it is dated within the period since the Prime Minister first intervened. It is a brief but admirable document, which, talking about the identity card system introduced by Chelsea — which applies, in any case, only to the 11,000 members of Chelsea's supporters club —says:
It has taken over two years for people to accept the idea and for the club to iron out teething problems.
If a prosperous and efficient club such as Chelsea takes two years to iron out such a scheme, it is asking a great deal of the other 90-odd clubs to introduce such a scheme within the six weeks between now and the opening of the football season.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman has berated the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for not, in effect, putting forward more measures at this time. While I have sympathy with some of what he has been saying, is he aware—in relation to the various schemes which he has outlined in his attempt to get some political capital out of a Bill which has been well accepted by the House—that such matters as identity cards, all-ticket games, and membership cards are complex issues which, surely, are not for this House to decide? If, heaven forbid, the right hon. Gentleman was in the position of the Home Secretary in government, would he and the Labour party introduce legislation to make it illegal for people to enter grounds without identity cards or for there to be all-ticket games and so on? He must appreciate the complexity of the legislation that would be needed to achieve those ends, if indeed such legislation were necessary.

Mr. Kaufman: On Second Reading we debate what is and what should be in a Bill—[Interruption.]—and I am surprised that the Government believe that it is somehow inappropriate for the House to consider a number of matters relating to hooliganism at football grounds rather than simply this small Bill, which we are facilitating and which we hope will succeed. Rather than debate only a small measure which, the Minister will agree, is fragmentary and only marginally—

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. Kaufman: I am doing my best to deal with the various issues. The Government have been considering this matter for nearly four months. The Minister with responsibility for sport, who, curiously, is not to speak in the debate, said in April that the Government had asked those involved in the sport to bring forward within six weeks — a time limit which he, not I, imposed — a scheme for membership cards. It does not become Conservative Members to ask me to be more practical than the Government whom they are supporting.

Mr. John Carlisle: What would the right hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give commitments about legislation before being able to examine the matter further. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to giggle. The Minister with responsibility for sport is on record as saying that he wanted a scheme introduced within six weeks of 19 April. That period elapsed a month ago, and nothing has been brought forward. It ill becomes Conservative Members therefore to ask me, in opposition, to do what the Government said they would do and have not done.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Listening to the right hon. Gentleman is similar to listening to a prophet of doom. One would not think that people were being terrorised on trains and buses and outside football grounds, that shops were being smashed in and families frightened to death. The right hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for taking four months to deal with the matter. In that period, Ministers have been concerned with other legislation, with having meetings and with preparing the Bill which we are considering. For 20 years the country has been waiting for a Government to do something about the football problem in the United Kingdom. At last we have a Prime Minister with the guts to do something about it, and I am delighted that she is sitting on the Front Bench listening to the debate.

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman can remain long enough, his knighthood is now not in doubt, and I congratulate him. He is right, of course, to refer to the problems of hooliganism, vandalism and safety. They are profoundly important issues to society and I undertake to deal with them in some detail before concluding my remarks.
The official working party which the Minister with responsibility for sport set up said of membership cards:
The idea of limiting admission to football grounds to supporters club members has been discussed before and rejected on the grounds of practicability, in particular that the delay in verifying membership cards at the turnstiles would itself lead to frustration and possibly violence, especially if ticket holders were refused admission.
The working party went on to argue that computerisation would help to solve some of the difficulties, but anyone who has examined the problems knows of the sheer complexity of dealing with the challenge of crowd control at football grounds, and the Chelsea paper makes that clear.
Yesterday I saw at White Hart Lane, as other hon. Members have seen at their football grounds, the enormous expense to which Tottenham Hotspur has gone


to try to deal with these matters. Even Tottenham, a professional, well organised club, would not claim that it has been able to solve the problems.
The Minister with responsibility for sport returned recently from an international conference at Strasbourg with an agreement in his pocket. May we be told the practical effect of that agreement and to what extent the Government can deliver what the hon. Gentleman agreed at Strasbourg?
These are matters with which the Popplewell inquiry is supposed to be dealing. There are three weeks to the parliamentary recess and six weeks to the start of the football season, yet we have no knowledge of when even an interim report from Mr. Justice Popplewell can be expected. The Home Secretary simply said that the report would be brought forward at an early date.
When the Prime Minister addressed the House a month ago, she said that Mr. Justice Popplewell hoped to submit an interim report before the beginning of next season. There is not much time left for that, and it is difficult to see how the recommendations of such a report, if brought forward, could possibly be implemented in time for the season, even if the report were made available quickly.
In any event, some matters are not included in the Popplewell inquiry's terms of reference. One, which is of crucial importance to the clubs, is finance. All of the proposals that the Government have made, whether or not they are practicable, involve considerable extra expense, and there is no doubt that the proposals in the Bill will be financially damaging to clubs, often severely so. That factor must be borne in mind in the context of the Bill, and it cannot be denied, but the Government seem impervious to the financial needs of the clubs.
The implication of the Prime Minister's statement is that the only help forthcoming must be from the Football Grounds Improvement Trust. It has to be said that, helpful though that trust undoubtedly is, the sums of money available from it, considering that more than 90 league clubs are involved, are insufficient to finance the structural costs of the changes that will be needed. Opposition Members believe that serious consideration must be given to the establishment of a football levy board comparable to that for horse racing. The Government obtain hundreds of millions of pounds annually in taxation from football, and the arguments of the sport for a return of at any rate part of that money are persuasive.
The Government are still silent on the subject of the responsibility of Fascist groupings for at any rate some of the violence. The existence of racist elements among the hooligans is not in doubt. The Chelsea club paper on hooliganism admits:
There is still a certain amount of racist chanting at Stamford Bridge directed at the visiting players".
It goes on to say:
This is no worse than at other clubs".
I do not regard that as a comfort.
Anybody who has seen copies of Bulldog, the National Front youth magazine, must be profoundly disturbed by what he has read. The magazine regularly contains a special section entitled "On the football front". It provides photographs of members of the National Front at football grounds and it boasts, whether truthfully or not, of increasing sales of this detestable publication at football grounds. The magazine, in this section, features details of

racist clubs in special league tables. One issue which I have seen congratulates Newcastle on being top of the racist league. It even shows a girl modelling a special
Chelsea National Front T-shirt, and West Ham, I understand, is similarly polluted by the National Front.
Leicester university published a study last year which stated:
It seems rather more than coincidental … that the identification of an active British Movement component in the support of Leeds United in the early 1980s should have prefaced some of the worst violence and vandalism by Leeds fans, certainly since the 1970s.
A report in The Times last month after the Brussels disaster stated:
Opponents who monitor NF activities say that the extremists are interested in football violence as a means of destabilising society and winning publicity for themselves. This, they say, adds a new, menacing perspective to the extremists' longstanding campaign to exploit the tribal instincts and underprivileged circumstances among football's younger supporters." I put it very strongly to the Government that they must take this Fascist connection much more seriously, and they ought to come to the House and announce exactly what is to be done about it.
I do not, of course, claim that Fascists are the only cause. The Chelsea paper points this out by saying:
There is good reason to believe that much of the trouble is premeditated and well organised, with matches carefully chosen in advance. There was trouble at Southampton earlier in the season, and yet the same numbers were well behaved at Coventry. When Chelsea played Arsenal, with an attendance of nearly 35,000 there was little or no trouble and yet against Sunderland with a similar attendance there was serious disorder. Recent events show that the same people appear where trouble occurs.
There are even deeper causes of violence in society — causes which the Fascists are exploiting and which apply not only to football. The violent invasion of the pitch at the Headingley test match last month is only the latest of a series of warnings that violence can spread to cricket and to other sports. After all, what is the nature of what takes place at football grounds and at other large gatherings? What we have is a riot looking for somewhere to happen.
The report by our great and much lamented friend, Frank McElhone, put it like this in 1977:
A hooligan is a hooligan no matter where he operates and the fact that his behaviour is conspicuous at a football match has very often nothing to do with the game itself. To many hooligans football grounds provide the theatres where they can indulge in exhibitionist violence and be sure of an audience. A football ground is a convenient site for the activities of hooligans because of the comparative safety from possible detection which a large crowd provides.

Mr. Robert Atkins: If I may move to an area which features largely in the discussion about this issue, can the right hon. Gentleman help by giving his views on why this should affect football in inner city areas while it does not affect, for example, Rugby League, a particularly working-class sport in the north, to an extent Rugby Union, and still, thankfully, the great game of cricket? This needs examination. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to pursue the problem?

Mr. Kaufman: I have done my best to look into authorities on this matter, and I have several things to say about it. If we really knew the answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions, we would be debating today not the Bill but a measure which could deal with the problem much more comprehensively.
Football grounds are chosen most often because, almost uniquely in society, they are the places at which boys and young men gather in their thousands, ready for incitement and exploitation and, when circumstances so contrive, to react spontaneously.
The question is: what is the nature of this violence, what are its causes and what are its compulsions? There have been many investigations and many explanations. The explanations point, for example, to the absence of adults in the areas in which most of the rowdiness originates in the football grounds. Then there is the relative absence of women, whose presence can have a restraining effect in these circumstances.
There are deep social discontents, which have been described, among others, by Mr. David Robins, a writer who specialises in this subject. He said:
Unemployment, rejection of authority and lack of facilities in deprived inner cities, undoubtedly play a part in hooliganism. These are people who have got to a point in their lives where they have had enough." He continued:
People talk about the two nations in Britain. We know about the North and the South and about the employed and unemployed. But there is a moral order as well. There are two cultures, and one is quite discontented with the other.
Unemployment is not of itself the cause of the violence, and most unemployed people certainly do not take part in it, but it may well be that the feelings of frustration and rejection which are caused by unemployment can play their part.
Four months ago, after the Millwall-Luton violence, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked for an analysis of whether unemployment was at any rate a factor. A senior Minister, who was almost certainly the Leader of the House, was reported in the Daily Telegraph as refuting this possibility. The Minister argued:
Supporters of Liverpool and Everton, teams in an area of high unemployment, had records of good conduct." So they had, but three months later, whatever its causes, there was the Brussels disaster, which involved Liverpool supporters.
It is difficult to obtain any reliable statistics about random violence or—

Mr. Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend illustrate the point that heavier sentences and punishment are proving not to be a deterrent? Is it not a fact that, only five days before the Brussels disaster, one fan in Cambridge was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and it had no effect at all?

Mr. Kaufman: That was the gang leader — the leader of the pack, as I believe he was called.
There are deep-seated causes of whose nature none of us is aware. That is why I make a proposal—

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) will observe, many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. It would be wrong of me to give way any further.
It is difficult to obtain any reliable statistics about random violence, vandalism or hooliganism in society because the criminal offences involved are not easily or clearly defined. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has made an effort to get together some facts about vandalism by examining the

statistics which are available for the offence of criminal damage. The association finds that this offence has been steadily increasing and that over a five-year period it had risen by more than one third. The report examined the figures for convictions and cautions for criminal damage and found that almost all of those involved—between 93 and 95 per cent. — were males and that the preponderant majority were aged under 21. For mirror offences, nearly 90 per cent. were aged under 17.
While most youths and young men, whether employed or unemployed, are law abiding, it is disturbing that a substantial minority are prey to the temptations and exploitations that are manifested in violence at sporting events, especially football matches.
The Chelsea paper warns:
Soccer has merely reflected the decline of society in general.
It demands that the lead in dealing with the situation
must come from Government who came to power on a law and order platform.
The Labour party believes that there must be an urgent and expert examination of the causes of the growing violence in our society—violence which has now grown to alarming levels. Old people fear it and hide from it behind the lace curtains of their homes. Young people are often the main victims of it. The nation is sick at heart as it reads of it and watches its most dramatic outbursts on television screens.
We cannot afford simply to tinker with the problem. We cannot afford simply to denounce it. Strong or even strident words have never solved any problem. We must find out what it is, why it has arisen and not only how it can be stamped out, but how its causes can be dealt with and, if possible, removed. The people of this country yearn to feel safe, not only when they attend football matches, but in their villages, towns and cities, in their neighbourhoods and homes. It is the duty of this House to do everything in its power to bring about in Britain an orderly, free and peaceful society, and to that objective we in the Labour party firmly dedicate ourselves.

Sir Bernard Braine: I welcome the Bill and commend the Government for taking swift action to combat football violence following the tragedy in Brussels. I also heartily support the warm tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) paid to our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I would judge that the personal interest that she has shown has played a part in getting this measure so quickly before the House. Even so, it is a great pity that 38 people had to be killed and 200 people injured in Brussels before this House had the opportunity to study such a measure.
I have some criticism of the Bill, but I wish to make it plain that it is not directed solely at the Government. Unlike the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I do not believe that the rot began with the advent of the present Administration. For some years now, successive Governments have presided over a gradual deterioration in social behaviour. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have warned time after time that that is linked with a marked increase in alcohol consumption.
The right hon. Gentleman may be right in his analysis of what is going wrong with a growing section of British


society, but there is still a failure to look at the problem in the round. Throughout the 1970s and since, Governments have been constantly advised by social and medical authorities, by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and by their own advisory commitee on alcoholism — which was disbanded five years ago — of the need to tackle the growing social and health problems arising from alcohol consumption.
The measures taken in Scotland in 1981 to tackle the problem should have been extended to the remainder of the United Kingdom. They were not extended because no one at that time was prepared — and I am beginning to doubt whether anyone is now — to see the problem in the round.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not overlooking the fact that in January 1981 a number of hon. Members from all parts of the House presented a Bill that would have achieved the purposes of this Bill. It was led by the then Member of Parliament, William Whitlock, and supported by Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Tom Bradley and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). The Government blocked that Bill.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not overlooking anything of the kind. I paid a special tribute to hon. Members in all parties who, over the years, have directed their attention to the problem. However, the powerful interests involved have prevented timely action being taken. Even now I am not sure that the full implications of alcohol abuse—of which football violence is only one manifestation—have been grasped.
The one common denominator in violence, not only on football terraces but in other sports too, is alcoholic drink. I was shocked by some of the levity shown earlier in the debate. We are debating an extremely serious subject. I recall that when I was chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, I repeatedly told the House that the common denominator in most crime, in marital break-ups, in fatal accidents on the road — especially among the young — in non-accidental injuries to children, in football violence, and in hooliganism was drink. That is a fact that is reported by chief constables year after year. What is more, Select Committees of this House have reported that fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) shakes his head, but he has not been in the House long enough to know that Select Committees have repeatedly drawn attention to the problem. Until the Government recognise the need to curb alcohol consumption, we shall continue to experience more and more social disruption, of which football violence is only one manifestation.

Mr. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing an important and interesting point. Has it occurred to him that immediately before the Government introduced legislation in Scotland to deal with alcohol at football matches, we had reformed our licensing laws and considerably extended the hours during the day when people could drink? We in Scotland would argue that we have made drinking a much more relaxing pastime than it was previously. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of that? The Erroll report has been on some shelf in the Home Office for about 10 years. Is the right hon. Gentleman in

favour of reforming licensing laws in England and Wales in an attempt to alleviate the problem that he is highlighting?

Sir Bernard Braine: If I went too far down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might feel that I was straying from the purpose of the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly valid point, and I shall touch briefly upon it later in my speech.
The right hon. Member for Gorton made an interesting speech, and he referred to factors such as unemployment, the disillusionment of the young and their disaffection with authority as being major reasons for anti-social behaviour. I do not necessarily dissent from that. However, it is interesting to note that during a comparable period of unemployment in the 1930s, there were no reported cases of football violence such as we have today. Might that not be due to the fact that alcohol consumption then was at its lowest point in the history of our country? Today, consumption per head of the population is five times higher than it was in the 1930s. It is now nearly as high as at the turn of the century when Governments were obliged to take measures to curb the endemic disorder of alcohol abuse.
It is for that reason that we must view the Bill against the backcloth of the Government's alcohol policy — or, to be more precise, their lack of policy. If we demand action from the Football Association and from football clubs, the Government must take similar decisive action that complements rather than complicates their responsibilities. Indeed, it is the lack of a national alcohol control policy that exacerbates the problems facing football clubs.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather odd for the House to be discussing this subject and for him to be using the language that he is using when licensing hours in the House of Commons are non-existent? Are we saying that others should be controlled, but we can have total licence?

Sir Bernard Braine: "Odd" is perhaps an odd word to use. I have never agreed with such licence, but I would not presume to lecture my colleagues on that matter. That surely is a matter for the House to put right if it has the will.
The problem has not come upon us suddenly. When reviewing the failure of the 1967 drink-driving legislation, the Blennerhassett committee made the following observation:
We feel it must be recognised that the growing abuse of alcohol is a major factor in the declining effectiveness of the 1967 Act.
We should therefore consider the Bill against a background that is worse now than that contemplated by the Blennerhassett committee.
The evidence is clear that alcohol consumption among the young is now a matter of great concern and is likely to get worse. I understand that a recent survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is not yet published, will confirm that. If we are seeking an explanation of the increased drinking among the young, how can we ignore factors such as advertising and the promotion of alcohol? I am appalled that the Football Association and the football clubs openly seek sponsorship from the manufacturers of the products that Parliament is now being asked to prohibit from the terraces.
Those of us who have worked on the problem of alcohol abuse have long deplored the efforts of the drink industry


to sponsor football teams both nationally and locally. In 1979, the England team chose a most inappropriate time to reach a commercial agreement with a leading national brewery. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) might like to know that, ironically, at the moment when that agreement was being sought, the Football Association was demanding tough measures from the Government against soccer hooliganism. The Government were responding by introducing the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. At the very time when Parliament was attempting to alleviate the problem of violence on football terraces in Scotland, the England team was willing to enter into drink sponsorship.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has intervened several times. When I finish making my point, I shall give way.
I said at that time, in my capacity as chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, that such sponsorship was untimely, unwelcome and unhelpful and showed gross social irresponsibility and a complete neglect of social reality.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has referred to social responsibility. Many people in the drink industry would totally refute his remarks. Although some money goes into the sponsorship of major clubs, a vast amount of money from the drink industry goes to youth clubs and to those who are trying to promote the young in sporting activities. My right hon. Friend must acknowledge, that although some of the money goes into senior clubs where such problems might occur, much of it is being used for training the young in sporting activities.

Sir Bernard Braine: It would have been better if my hon. Friend had not intervened if his line of argument is that, because evil is being done in one area, the pill may be sweetened by making a contribution to some worthy cause. That is a frightening argument, and I reject it.
However — this will interest my hon. Friend — after discovering that the same brewery was negotiating a renewal of the contract to which I referred, the Institute of Alcohol Studies wrote to Mr. Ted Croker of the Football Association — well before the Brussels tragedy -requesting that the sponsorship contract should not be renewed. Mr. Croker did not reply. Instead, a reply came from the association's press officer, who informed the institute that the renewal of the contract was not a matter for the association, because the contract was with the team, so the letter had been passed to the players' pool. Two months later the institute has still not received any reply.
I am informed that, in conversation with a journalist, a representative of the brewery to which I have referred claimed that it did not accept that alcohol was the cause of the violence. Sponsorship of football clubs by drink companies is clearly designed to associate the consumption of alcohol with youth, glamour and sporting success, though every first-rate sportsman knows perfectly well that it is death to achievement on the sports field to consume alcohol in excess — [Interruption.] Indeed I would remind my hon. Friends that such associations are forbidden by the Independent Broadcasting Authority's code of advertising standards and practice. However hollow those associations now appear in the wake of the

tragic events at Brussels, in my view, the continuation of that form of promotion displays both a cynical disregard for truth and irresponsibility of an advanced order. It seems that that which is prohibited on the terraces can be emblazoned on the field.
There are other voices that the House and the country should heed. Addressing itself last week to the promotion and advertising of alcohol, the British Medical Association — the advice of which I prefer to accept on this matter than that of the drink industry — gave us a clear, concise and courageous lead. It is a pity that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has not incorporated that advice into the Bill.
Thus, with regard to the linkage of football violence with the consumption of alcohol, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the Bill does not go far enough.
One particular point has been raised by other hon. Members in interventions, but I should like to make it again. It is both absurd and socially offensive to allow loopholes whereby drink is barred from the terraces but not from the directors' boxes. Nothing is more ridiculous, unfair or divisive than that a special category of people should be exempted from the general rule, which, quite properly, is to be applied in future in and around football grounds. The directors and managers of football clubs should be required to set an example.
The Bill genuflects — I troubled myself over that word — to the power of vested interests. I have to assume that its less than even-handed approach reflects the views of the drink industry and its determination to enhance its profits by encouraging more consumption—

Mr. Tony Banks: It gives a lot of money to the Tory party.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am being consistent. I have said that in the House year after year, and have had a great deal of support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The clubs appear to be no better. Instead of some of them parading their grievances before the High Court, feeling that they are being treated unfairly by bans, justifiably imposed, the club directors concerned should have displayed their willingness to take the lead and set an example by banning alcohol from their boxes. I fully recognise the point being made by several hon. Members about how much clubs fear they will lose financially by a uniform ban. No doubt the leasing of private boxes where business firms can entertain their guests and ply them with alcohol is a lucrative source of finance. I am told that there are top league clubs that derive incomes of £200,000 a year from such leasings. Yet I am not convinced that such clubs would lose out by banning alcohol. If they did, then the leaders of business and football need to question the example that they are setting the young.
Once upon a time, whole families used to go to football matches. I am glad to see that I carry the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) with me. They went to watch the game and to enjoy the skills of the players. In one sense, it was an alternative to drinking. The joy and exhilaration of the football match itself was an alternative to becoming sodden in drink. Now it appears that drink is replacing football for some who attend. One wonders which is the ancillary activity. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West can enlighten me. It is a prime example of the way in which alcohol permeates and controls our social life. Some football clubs seem to be as dependent on alcohol as any alcoholic.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to think again about this exemption. It is wrong. I ask him to stop dilly-dallying. I ask him to stop tying a bandage when what is needed is a tourniquet.
Those of us who have sat in several Parliaments — and there are some of us who have been here for a good many years — have heard Ministers of both parties expressing their commitment to addressing the problem of alcohol abuse, but know that no firm, direct or decisive action has followed. Over the past 20 years we have in the House permitted, almost in a fit of absence of mind, a gradual relaxation of restrictions on the availability of alcohol. Reference has been made by one hon. Member to the point of sale as being pubs and clubs. No mention has been made of supermarkets. At a single stroke, it is possible for people, who never enter a pub or an off-licence, on impulse to buy off the shelves in supermarkets.
We have encouraged the proliferation of such outlets, and are still doing so. Alcohol has actually become cheaper in real terms. What other commodity in our lives has become cheaper in real terms over the past 10 to 15 years? Throughout this period, the drinks industry has spent massive sums, not only on doing the good works mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), but on advertising in the press, on radio, on television and on the sports field. We have colluded with its message of manliness and glamour, its indispensability to the good life and material success. Should we be surprised that the chickens are now coming home to roost?
I pose a serious question. What point does alcohol abuse have to reach before we are prepared to curb consumption? Must we reach the appalling level that has already been reached in the Soviet Union and France? Some 20 per cent. of all beds in National Health Service hospitals are occupied by people suffering from alcohol-related disease. The comparable figure in France is 40 per cent. Are we to move down the league to match France? This country was once famed for its sobriety and our licensing laws were considered by many overseas who were worried about alcoholism to be a model. This is no longer so.
It would be churlish not to thank the Government for recognising the need to control the availability of alcohol at least in one place—on the football terrace. However, I must warn them that only when they have the courage to accept the need to work out a national control policy on alcohol consumption and availability will they solve a problem that is growing in economic cost, health harm and social misery.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I recognise that, given the current climate surrounding football, hooliganism and violence, it is right for this or any Government to take this problem seriously and to act responsibly and positively to combat it. The trouble is that this Bill will not do much about the problem. The law-abiding public — that means the genuine, law-abiding football public — will not find much comfort in this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a convincing case for not supporting some aspects of the Bill, although he is facilitating it, and I understand his reasons for doing that. However, he does

not carry me with him on certain parts of the Bill. I shall explain why, and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will agree with me.
I recognise and welcome the fact that the Government, at long last, are waking up to the problem that many of us have seen for many years. Many of us have argued for action to be taken in this sector in the past three years or so. However, we have not advocated the course of action set out in the Bill. If we had been listened to, football would have been in a more healthy state than it is today.
We have just been reminded by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that Mr. Jack Dunnett, the current president of the football league, when he was a Member of the House, supported a measure with many of the provisions which are contained in the Bill, but it was blocked by the Government of the time. That shows that those responsible for football have for many years tried to take the Government with them in trying to solve this problem. Therefore, the Government must recognise that these problems have been with us for some time. The Government are a late riser, looking at this problem like a drunk through the haze. They are over-reacting and are not seeing the position clearly. The result is this legislation.
We can exaggerate the problems in football, and the Government are doing so. In the debate we must have clearly at the back of our minds the fact that it is the violent minority within the community that it is attaching itself to football and causing the problems in that game. The reasons are fairly obvious. Football is our national game, it attracts a great deal of media coverage and these hooligans do not need to spend a great deal of time on a Saturday afternoon to cause havoc. Equally, they have little chance of being detected at the moment.
I emphasise that violence at soccer games is caused not by football but by society and by a number of factors, some of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton spelled out. The overwhelming majority of football clubs had little or no problem with hooliganism or violence. Some 2,500 league and cup games are played every year, and most occur without serious incident. We have recently been reminded that only eight games last year had to go to the FA for inquiry. Therefore, we have to see the Bill in the proper context of football and not over-react to it.
Nobody would ever condone — this is why I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has been able to assist the Government in this — the activities that have gone on in certain grounds in this country and abroad. We were all appalled at what happened at Birmingham, Luton and Brussels. We must do something about the matter, but we must consider it in its proper context.
I must declare an interest. As is probably obvious, I am a soccer buff. I am a shareholder — my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be falling down at this stage — of Hyde United football club. Perhaps even worse in some eyes, I am a shareholder in Derby County football club. I am chairman of the parliamentary Labour party sports committee and the all-party football committee. Hon. Members may not think that I speak with an expert voice, but I speak with a passionate voice. Members of the all-party football committee are worried. Some of them are present, such as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Bassetlaw (Mr.


Ashton), and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has temporarily left us.

Mr. Tony Banks: He has gone for a drink.

Mr. Pendry: We have some sharp wits on our committee. For many years we have been worried about the effects of the Scottish legislation spilling over into England and Wales. Unlike the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), we were so worried about the matter that we saw the Home Secretary in 1981, Viscount Whitelaw. It was the easiest deputation that I have ever experienced. It was like pushing at an open door. Indeed, some of the choice things that Lord Whitelaw said about Scottish Ministers cannot be repeated. He saw clearly that the legislation would not be relevant in England and Wales. He believed that Scotland was a different case from that which we are discussing today — urprise, surprise.
After our meeting with Lord Whitelaw, we heard some mutterings from the Minister with responsibility for sport, who was a little worried that the Government had changed their mind. We give him credit for that. We wrote to the present Home Secretary in 1983. I am sure that he will not mind if I quote from a letter that he wrote to me in June 1984:
I can assure you that the views you expressed when you met Willie Whitelaw in March 1981 to discuss this question were conveyed to Neil MacFarlane and I believe that the current Government policy reflects the common-sense view which you put to Willie then of the degree to which alcohol consumption is a contributory factor to football hooliganism. The guidelines issued by the Liaison Group, to which Neil's letter refers, suggest to clubs how best the sale of alcohol might be controlled if it is a problem for particular clubs and I am sure it is right that such advice should be available. Equally I should agree that it would he wrong to introduce legislation banning alcohol entirely unless it can be demonstrated that such a step was warranted by evidence of large scale alcohol-related hooliganism. In this respect I am particularly mindful of the different patterns of alcohol consumption as between Scotland, where legislation was deemed appropriate, and England and Wales where, on the whole, the alcohol problem is less.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As an historic footnote, immediately before and immediately after the hon. Gentleman's deputation to Lord Whitelaw, the Police Federation and I saw the Home Secretary and said precisely the opposite. We said that it was time to introduce such legislation. The hon. Gentleman and his team prevailed and my team lost, but in the event we have been proved right.

Mr. Pendry: I should like to show that the Home Secretary was right and that the hon. Gentleman — as generally the case—was wrong. However, in his letter, the Home Secretary implied that legislation would not be introduced unless something changed. The big change since that time has been the Prime Minister's involvement. The Prime Minister is responsible for the reaction of her puppets on the Front Bench. Of course, her deep, longstanding interest in football problems is well known. She is wielding the big stick on this occasion.
Every member of our committee and I am sure most hon. Members recognise that there is a relationship between alcohol and hooliganism. We have agreed on that all along. In many ways, we wish to make the Bill tougher. We recognise that alcohol is responsible for the mindless acts that took place at those much-quoted games and at many others. Anyone who has studied the matter in depth

knows that consumption of alcohol at the ground is not the problem. Anyone who gets more than two pints of beer at a ground is lucky and deserves a star.
The Bill is not tough enough. I criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton for not telling the Government that. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Bill does not deal with the problem. Much of the problem stems from the sale and consumption of alcohol outside the ground. We should concentrate on that and try to eliminate it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have joined me in trying to toughen the Bill with amendments.
A central weakness of the Bill is that it loses the flexibility exercised by football clubs, the police and magistrates at sensitive games. I have received a letter from Manchester United, stating:
The police have on several occasions asked that alcohol should not be served in certain parts of the ground, and this has been done without question.
For many years, the police, magistrates and clubs have acted sensibly to ensure that we did not have problems similar to those in Scotland. The difference in Scotland was clear. The grounds were dry, and spectators who wanted to drink were fored to go there with alcohol on their persons. After they had drunk from bottles, they would throw them away, which caused many problems. They have now been almost eliminated, but we remember the problems at recent games between Hibs and other clubs. But the legislation has helped. Until now, we have relied on the good sense of the police, magistrates and clubs to close bars during sensitive matches. Now that the Prime Minister has left the Chamber, perhaps the Minister who will reply to the debate can talk more freely about the problem.
I should like the prohibition in clause 1 to be extended beyond trains and buses to aircraft, ferries—we wish to have clarification of this point when the Minister replies — mini-coaches and hired vans. We hope that parts of the Bill can be toughened and other parts removed.
Central to the concept of the Bill is that the consumption of alcohol at football grounds is responsible for hooliganism. All the evidence gathered by the all-party football committee and those who have considered the matter shows that that is not the case. We must tell the Prime Minister that, when this part of the Bill fails, as it must, it will be her responsibility. She will have to bear the brunt of the criticism that will come as a result of failing to meet this challenge, while at the same time crucifying many football clubs.
It is ironic that many of the clubs which are doing all the things that the Prime Minister asks of them, such as improving policing and safety, installing closed circuit television and issuing membership cards — there are a number of views about that — will be hammered most by the Bill. We must ask the Prime Minister to think again.
The Home Secretary named three games which spurred the Government into action — the Birmingham-Leeds game, the Luton-Millwall game and the infamous Liverpool-Juventus game. It is ironic that all the grounds at which those matches were played were dry. No alcohol was purchased in any of them. There are many other such grounds. The Government should tune in to that fact. We have this rushed legislation because the Government are convinced that alcohol consumption at grounds was a main


cause of the trouble at those games. Clearly, it was not. That is a well-known fact, and I hope that the Minister will refer to it.
The Prime Minister, for all her talk about delegating responsibility, is usurping the powers of the police, the magistrates and the clubs to do what is sensible and flexible. I hope to nail the myth that the Scottish experiment is well tried and that drinking at grounds is a contributory factor. In Scotland only one ground — Clydebank — had a problem connected with drinking at the ground. That club got round the problem by putting blinds round its social club. I am told that the legislation will not cover executive boxes. An Opposition amendment has been tabled to deal with that. Poor Clydebank will be caught out.
A salutary fact is that on cup final day on 18 May this year two games of note took place. One was at Hampden Park — a dry ground — and the other at Wembley — a wet ground. About 80,000 people were at Hampden Park and 100,000 at Wembley. More arrests took place at Hampden Park, proportionately, than at Wembley. If the Government are not convinced that part of their Bill is nonsense, I hope that that will make them think again.
I ask the Minister of State to clarify one or two matters. It might be flippant, but I must ask the House to consider what will happen at an executive club house with a menu consisting of such fare as lobster bisque with brandy, coq au yin, sherry trifle, gaelic coffee and brandy snaps. It is obvious that people will be able to get round the regulations. I ask the Government to think about that.
The Home Secretary talked about readjusting boxes so that they do not overlook the ground. Can the Minister of State clarify that, because it does not seem to be logical, or even possible? The Home Secretary talked about the difference between being out of sight of the pitch and having a direct view of the event. What did he mean by that? Is one-way glass a serious proposition?
It is possible that 19 clubs will be penalised. Possibly more than £4 million is involved and many of the clubs are doing everything that has been asked of them. The Government are rushing through the legislation and the Lords are due to examine it tomorrow. Many hon. Members know something about football and have not been rushed into forming an opinion. They have been talking to the clubs and the football authorities for many years. I hope that the Government will listen to them. I hope that the Bill will be amended so that it is more sensible.
We do not wish to give the impression that we are opposed to some of the good provisions in the Bill. I am making a short speech and can deal only with contentious matters and with how the Government have gone wrong. I hope that the Government will pay attention to hon. Members on both sides who have a genuine interest in our national game.
Millions of our constituents go to football games. We have a duty to ensure that the law-abiding, genuine football fan is not prohibited from seeing good games in good conditions. I want the Government to take on board the genuine cross-party feeling on the subject before the legislation is passed.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) with interest, knowing his knowledge of football, and accepting his experience as joint chairman of the all-party football committee and his declared interest in two football clubs. His speech might be regarded as being a little like the dance of the seven veils. He seemed fundamentally to be in favour of the Bill, with the reservation that if it were not tough enough the Home Secretary would have to introduce further measures. I applaud that view. However, the hon. Gentleman seemed one by one to throw away his criticisms of the Bill. At heart I believe that we are at one, but I appreciate that because of the hon. Gentleman's vested interests he concludes that all the evils in football occur outside the ground rather than inside.
I have an interest to declare as parliamentary adviser to the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, which represents the proprietors of public houses in England and Wales, both tenanted and free. I am also a licensee. My pub is called the "Cricketers Arms", not the "Footballers Arms". I am glad to see that the only other licensee in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), is in the Chamber.
With authority I can say that licensees welcome the Bill. We think that it is long overdue. For the last 14 years, since the Erroll committee reported, we have dithered over the introduction of more flexible drinking hours. Our present licensing laws are ridiculous and not only damage our licensed and tourist trades but aggravate the problem which the Bill is designed to stamp out.
The debate on flexible hours is coming to an end. Scotland blazed the trail with flexible hours some years ago and I hope that England and Wales will follow. The licensed trade therefore needs a bad press now like it needs a hole in the cellar. Yet today alcohol gets a very bad press. The papers say that it is an aphrodisiac of violence and that it is common knowledge that soccer hooligans get even nastier after a few cans of beer.

Mr. James Couchman: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind reference to me earlier in his speech. I have an unashamed vested interest, as I have the licence of a public house within half a mile of Stamford bridge, Chelsea's football ground. I should like to nail the lie that licensees look forward to football games with keen anticipation, hoping to make a killing once a week. They do not. They look forward with hatred and loathing to those days. They have to care for their regular customers in their public houses, and many of them, like my manager at Fulham, have to stand by a locked door and allow in their regular customers.
I was hurt by the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who called for pubs to be closed on match days. Licensees do not want football hooligans in their pubs. They take a responsible attitude and recognise that magistrates have powers to close public houses when particularly sensitive matches are staged.

Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable intervention. Both he and the manager of his pub would agree that we need a reduction in the ever-increasing number of unsupervised outlets where people can buy liquor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), as always, over-egged the pudding a little.
No one could call his speech a trifle — there was certainly no sherry in it — but he made the extremely valid point that it is now easy for young people to get alcohol from unsupervised outlets.

Sir Bernard Braine: The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is making are valuable contributions to the debate. They emphasise the sharp distinction which should be made between the public house, which is one of the glories of an English tradition and national life, where drinking is conducted under controlled conditions and where the licensee knows that he is in danger of losing his licence if his house is not an orderly one, and the ease with which successive Governments have permitted alcohol to be sold in less controlled conditions.

Mr. Colvin: At this rate, my right hon. Friend may be invited to address the next annual conference of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers.
The licensing trade supports the Bill and tougher sentences for football thugs, but it feels that prevention is far better than cure. I shall make four suggestions which will help to prevent further drunken football thuggery.
First, over the 10 years from 1970 to 1980 there has been an enormous increase in the number of off-licences, to which hon. Members have already referred. That figure has risen by a full third over that period by 11,000 to 42,000. These outlets do not just include supermarkets. The ordinary corner shop now sells drink, and even garages are retailing alcohol. We would like to see fewer off-licences, but the trend still continues upwards. That is where much of the drink problem lies. If the number of off-licences was reduced, football violence would be reduced also. That is a matter for the licensing magistrates, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should give guidance along the lines that I have suggested.
Secondly, the time when coaches and football specials arrive in towns should be closer to match kick-off. At present, crowds begin assembling far too early, sometimes even the night before a match. The neighbourhood around the football ground becomes terrorised, even with opposing supporters setting up no-go areas. That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport to rectify.
Thirdly, I should like to see the closure of all off-licence outlets on match days, especially during the morning. Such a policy need not apply to public houses, because licensees are proud of their professional approach to selling drink and uphold the law. They can already refuse to supply potential hooligans, but would wish to continue to sell drink to their regular and responsible customers. If the closure of pubs near football grounds is contemplated, licensees who enjoy a close relationship with their local police force feel that there should be discussions with them beforehand. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that he will give guidance to both magistrates and police forces.
Fourthly, our dotty licensing laws are also partly to blame for the problem of football hooliganism. Spectators tank up before a match because too often the pubs and shops are shut after the game is over. They may tank up to a greater extent if alcohol is banned on the terraces. The

time to enjoy a drink is while relaxing afterwards, either to celebrate a victory or to drown the sorrows of defeat, but our present drinking hours may prevent that. I look forward to a future Bill which will revise our licensing hours.
In conclusion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister declared that we should put our house in order through persuasion, prevention and punishment — three Ps, to which I would add a fourth, the publicans. They will back the Prime Minister fully in this task. That is why I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: When he opened the debate the Home Secretary said that this was one of a series of Government measures to tackle the disturbing and unacceptable trend of hooliganism both in football grounds and spilling over after football matches into the public domain.
I begin by expressing my appreciation of the Home Secretary's courtesy in offering my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) the opportunity of some foreknowledge of the Bill and consultation on its contents. The Bill is necessary, though perhaps not ideal. It is necessary because the connection between excessive alcohol consumption at football grounds and violence both in the grounds and in their vicinity is obvious.
I do not entirely understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) about the difference between the position in Scotland and that in England and Wales. It is true that no alcohol was sold at football grounds in Scotland, but it is also true that large quantities of alcohol were consumed at Scottish grounds. A great deal of alcohol used to be consumed by people not only before they went into football grounds but from cans and containers that were taken into the grounds. That made it imperative to introduce legislation in Scotland. It was observed by the committee chaired by the late Frank McElhone that it was the presence of alcohol at Scottish football grounds that made it necessary to ban the consumption of alcohol there. The fact that alcohol was not on sale was a secondary consideration.

Mr. Ewing: Memories are short. The background to the setting up of the McElhone committee was a match played not in Scotland but in England. It was a Rangers-Birmingham game, which was played in Birmingham, where there was exactly the same trouble as occurred during the Luton-Millwall game. It was during the week following the Rangers-Birmingham game that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millar') decided to set up the working party.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman's correct statement about the provenance of the committee, but in considering what the law should be I am more impressed by the report of Frank McElhone and his committee, which said:
Nearly all those who gave evidence were firmly of the view that a strong relationship exists between alcohol and violence and that a good deal of the disturbances associated with football is due to the amount of alcohol consumed before, during and after matches.
The report contained no reference to alcohol not being available for sale. It was the consumption of alcohol that made it necessary to legislate. It was correct to do so and


the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 has been a success. Its success has been commented upon by chief constables — notably by the chief constable of Strathclyde in his 1983 report. This was before the current round of violence, which has given rise to great anxiety and led to the introduction of the Bill.
When he introduced the Bill, the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not place it sufficiently in context. It is partly for that reason that its provisions are less welcome to some of those who will be directly affected financially than it would have been had he been able to spell out his attitude towards the financial consequences.
I differ from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who implied that the Government should not have legislated at this time. I do not believe that it would have been possible for the Government to conclude precisely what all the financial consequences would be, stemming from the need to take account of the findings of the Popplewell inquiry, never mind the problems associated with drink. These matters should not be separated. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Government to come forward with a proposal in the round relating to the future of football which had been dreamed up in the last four months. I am not greatly impressed by those who now call for that kind of overall disposition, because in the past they had the opportunity to move in the direction which they now advocate.
It is right, however, to try to set the proposals contained in the Bill in the kind of framework in which the sport of football ought to be set if this is to be a better regulated and financially healthy sport which is not only open to all who wish to watch football with pleasure but which causes no disturbance to the neighbouring communities.
My view is that it would be appropriate to establish for the football industry a new licensing board, created by statute, and that it should be set up with the purpose of licensing outdoor sports grounds. It would take over the powers currently exercised by the county councils, and regional councils in Scotland, relating to ground safety. It would also have extensive powers to impose conditions on football grounds for crowd control. The board would be empowered to call on existing experts, including the police and the Health and Safety Executive, to inspect the grounds and to report to it.
In addition, a national board is needed now that the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils are to be abolished and their powers over sports ground safety transferred to joint boards. District and borough councils are unable properly to regulate sports grounds. They would probably come under considerable and perhaps irresistible pressure not to impose conditions upon popular local sports clubs which might threaten their financial viability.
Furthermore, a national body has the advantage of being able to build up a body of experience which it can apply in particular cases. The board would have to be satisfied in each case that the safety standards were adequate and that each ground had taken all reasonable steps to contain hooliganism. The board would have the responsibility of requiring particular measures to be taken which were appropriate to the circumstances within each ground before issuing a licence, and where a serious disorder occurred the board would have the power to

remove the licence for a specified period. Such a system would result in greater flexibility than is possible under a general provision of law of the kind that we are considering today, which will operate across the board and with very little local option. It would also take account of the record of clubs where there has been no trouble.
Although there have been about 4,000 arrests and prosecutions each year, perhaps half of them arising in England and Wales from incidents inside the ground, and about half of them from incidents outside the ground, attendances at football matches run into many millions — about 16 million, although the number has declined rapidly in recent years. The number will decline more rapidly unless hooliganism and the other problems that afflict the sport are tackled.
I hope that when the Government receive the report of the Popplewell inquiry they will examine the financial future of the industry and recognise that it is insufficient to expect the consequences of the necessary measures to promote safety and avoid hooliganism, which have a financial impact, to be dealt with by recourse to the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, which has wholly inadequate resources for the purpose. The financial resources that are available to it are suitable only to tide over the sport until a better financial basis is made available.
A great deal of money is taken from the football industry — about £200 million in football betting dues and a substantial amount in value added tax. Some of that money will have to be forgone by the Treasury if the sport is to be put in order. The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to the introduction of a levy system comparable to that in horse racing, but a further direct imposition on the sport would add to its problems, not ameliorate them.

Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1972 I introduced, as a ten-minute Bill, the Football Betting Levy Bill and that at long last it is coming to pass?

Mr. Maclennan: We have not heard from the Government whether they are sympathetic to this proposition, though I acknowledge the long-standing consistency of the hon. Gentleman in putting this forward.
I think that we need some explanation of why the Government did a volte face on the merits of this proposal. As I mentioned in an intervention, a Bill containing provisions comparable to these was presented to the House by William Whitlock, supported by Jack Dunnett, Tom Bradley and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan), in 1981, but it was blocked by the Government without any explanation. It would he helpful if the Government would explain how they have come to stand on their head on this issue. Only last year, they commended the findings of the working party which recommended against the introduction of a ban on the sale of alcohol and on the possession of alcohol inside sports grounds.
I am always delighted when the Government do a U-turn into the direction along which I have been travelling for some time. I hope that we can take them in our wake on many other issues concerning the prospects of football. The Government did a remarkable about turn, but their complete conversion was not explained at all. We are forced to read between the lines. It would seem that it was


simply the appalling events at Birmingham, the Luton-Millwall match and at Brussels which jogged the Government into taking the action which I have long considered necessary and desirable.
The Bill will be considered in detail shortly and I do not propose at this stage to make detailed criticisms. I simply assure the Government that my right hon. and hon. Friends are glad that they have made this move, which we support.

Sir Peter Emery: I welcome the Bill. There is no doubt whatever about the effects that alcohol has on football crowds—sad though it may be. One has only to see the vandalism on football trains to realise that. Vandalism also occurs at smaller — non-league — matches. It was amazing to see the effect of alcohol on an amateur game in my constituency — the semi-final between Exmouth and Fleetwood. Two sets of supporters at one end of the ground did not watch the match for 20 minutes; they were more interested in having a go at one another. Those who claim that alcohol in grounds is really of no consequence cannot be living in the present.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman help us by stating how much alcohol was available inside the Exmouth football ground and whether those people had bought it inside the ground or whether they arrived at the ground in that condition?

Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his interruption as I like to keep him properly informed. A special tent was set up so that alcohol could be provided at the ground. In addition, however, there is no doubt that the party of supporters who came in coaches to the match were well tanked up.
The main issue which seems to have escaped attention today is the role of directors and managers and their responsibility within the sport. Hooliganism has turned the watching of Association football on a Saturday afternoon from an enjoyable and reasonable event to which a person of any age could go—possibly as a family outing — into a drunken brawl. If people suggest that football has never been a family outing, I can tell them that I used to attend Highbury with my father and mother. They had two season tickets, and I was very lucky when my mother did not go because I did not have to go and stand in the ninepennies or the one-and-threepennies. A whole host of children went, and there was no fear about it. There were very large crowds — they were much larger in those prewar days than today. There was never any sign of the problems at football matches today.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many clubs are taking considerable initiatives, such as family stands and areas for families, to attract them to games? Watford is a classic example, with its new family stand.

Sir Peter Emery: Yes, indeed, and I greatly welcome that. Although some supporters are open to considerable condemnation, some managements of Association football clubs are open to much more criticism. Directors and managers of football clubs tend to escape criticism, and have done so again today.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider two reasons why I level that criticism. One is the excessive financial demands made in the sport and the large sums of money involved, and the second is the excessive trend to

"professionalism" — to the cost of the sport. By "professionalism", I mean the acceptance by players, managers and the media of what can now be called the "professional" foul. I am sorry, but a foul is a foul, and is to be condemned equally at all times. A foul is not acceptable because it might prevent a goal being scored. We must all condemn the practice of radio commentators talking of the professional foul as though it is acceptable.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is cheating.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman is right. it is cheating. It is time that management and directors got to grips with the problem, and perhaps with the rules. Perhaps the number of fouls should be totted up, so that when a team had three recorded against it the opposing team automatically got a goal. Management would soon get to grips with fouling if that happened.

Mr. Eric S. Hafer: That is a revolutionary idea.

Sir Peter Emery: It might be a revolutionary idea, but we should consider whether there are methods by which we can stop players behaving in that way and therefore suggesting that such behaviour is acceptable. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that supporters follow suit?

Mr. Michael Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when radio and television commentators accept fouls or changes in the rules, they are quickly accepted by the nation? For example, there was once a time when players appealed only in cricket, but players now appeal for corners and throw-ins because commentators accept the terminology and practice.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not disagree. The modern rush of players to celebrate the scoring of a goal, which leads to a major demonstration and the raising of arms to supporters, must encourage the atmosphere of frenzy among ardent supporters. I am glad that they have stopped the kissing though. Players are now willing to act against the rules of the game and to play with physical violence, which has never been encouraged in sport.
The drive to win at nearly any price, particularly in a major game, seems to be more important than the sport itself. It is not the slightest bit surprising that if those inclined to hooliganism follow this bad example as a basic rejection of authority in the ground, they can reject it once they leave the ground. Directors and managers could stop all this by positive leadership and control if they really set out to do so. The problem is that they have not, which is a major shame. It is spoiling a game for which I have great respect and from which I receive great pleasure.
The second difficulty is not dealt with by the Bill — the vast sums of money now involved in the sport. Many of the smaller clubs have great difficulty keeping their heads above water. With the vast sums of money earned by certain players, clubs need to win, winning being rather more important than any other aspect of the game. This has frequently led to a growth of supporters' clubs which often help to increase attendance and make a financial contribution to clubs to help them keep their heads above water. But in so doing, the supporters' clubs are contributing to the problem. A xenophobic feeling is often created by supporters' attitudes, the sales of favours and song sheets, parties to away games and their view that they are the greatest. It is not surprising when two sets of


supporters come head on shouting, "We are the greatest," that a conflict ensues. The Bill will never control such situations, and will lead to further conflict with potential hooligans.
Although the Bill will deal with part of the problem — that of alcohol abuse — it is only part. The Government cannot legislate for the action of directors and managers in the day-to-day control of an approach to the game of Association football. Positive leadership by clubs to put their house in order would, along with the Bill, make soccer a better game. It would be a positive step to benefit soccer and would increase attendances and income for the clubs. It is important for clubs to get back the right type of supporters. If they can do that, they will receive the support not of hooligans but of ordinary decent people who will contribute major financial benefits to the clubs. This action will benefit the Government, football supporters and managers and directors. That is what we should be after.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have two of the greatest football teams in my constituency. I mean, of course, Everton — I say Everton first — and Liverpool. The greatest problem over the years — I have represented my constituency for 21 years — has not been hooliganism or the sale of alcohol but complaints from people living around the grounds about the parking of vehicles during a football match. This has caused me, local councillors, local authorities and the police a great deal of trouble. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned the phrase "We are the greatest". The supporters of Liverpool who come from Liverpool and the supporters of Everton who come from Everton or Liverpool and around that district all say that their team is the greatest and they make it quite clear in song and in chant. Those two football teams and their supporters have travelled to games all over the country and there has been so little trouble from supporters that it has hardly been noticed.
When Liverpool and Everton have played against each other, the red scarves and blue scarves have travelled on the same motor coaches, the same trains and the same cars, and have been in the same pubs, without any trouble whatsoever. For 21 years, the Liverpool team has played all over Europe, and when have we seen hooliganism among Liverpool supporters at any of those matches?
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was at the Rotterdam match only a few weeks ago where Everton was playing and there was no trouble whatsoever from the Everson supporters.
I believe that we reacted a little too quickly — as it appeared to us in Liverpool — in putting the entire blame for the problems that have been created on the people of Liverpool. I was saddened. I happen to know Italians. I have had Italian friends since the end of the war. This watch was given to me— I have said this before — by an Italian partisan with whom I have been associated since the end of the war and I wear it with pride. I am not anti-Italian, but the idea that football hooligans come only from our country is absolutely untrue. I want to put that on record.
Nobody could condone such a terrible tragedy as a result of which people died. Those of us who watched the

match on television saw Juventas fans hold up a banner reading "Reds are animals". The average Juventas fan who does not understand English could not write such a banner. That was written by people who knew precisely what they were doing. Those who had scarves across their faces were wearing the emblem of certain Right-wing organisations in Italy. People on both sides at that match obviously wanted to use the situation politically.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who rightly said that we need to look at the deeper causes. I do not deny for one moment that alcohol played a part in the Brussels tragedy. UEFA has a responsibility and the local authorities in Belgium have a responsibility as well as ourselves. The Greater London council sent its deputy structural engineer, Mr. Jan Korff, to Brussels on 30 May, almost immediately after the tragedy, to examine the condition of the stadium. He reported:
The stadium is 50 years old and all the safety installations in section Z appear to be of the same age. There is no evidence of any recent repairs to the barriers, walls, fence or terraces. The general impression is that of long-term neglect, with the exception perhaps of the pitch perimeter fence which appears to be fairly new. Under our legislation, the stadium would not have been allowed to operate.
The last sentence is very important:
It appears that whilst the attack by Liverpool supporters caused the panic and the resulting stampede, the main direct cause of the deaths was the collapse of the safety barriers near the bottom of the terraces.
I want to get that on the record because I do not believe that even the Right-wing element had gone there with the deliberate intention of killing anyone. People died in tragic circumstances, but we must remember that some years ago 88 people died at Ibrox Park. Did anybody set out to kill 88 people there? Of course they did not, but certain circumstances caused those deaths.
The report by the Liverpool city building surveyor, who went there on 7 or 8 June, says much the same in relation to crowd segregation barriers:
This composite construction, whilst forming a physical barrier, would not withstand the normal loadings or force exerted by the sideways movements of a packed crowd on a terrace." In the summary, the following point is made:
The Stadium is generally 50 years old, and there appears to have been no major improvement to the level of safety standards at the Stadium, more particularly to the terraced area over that time … If the criterion of the 'Guide to the Safety of Sports Grounds (Football)' Code were to be applied to this particular Stadium, it is doubtful that the City Building Surveyor would be able to recommend a grant of a 'Safety Certificate' issued pursuant to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, 1975".
I want to get that on the record, because up to now it has not been stressed enough.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend has made an important point on the Liverpool match and the responsibility of UEFA. The Minister responsible for sport very properly complained after that great disaster that UEFA had totally ignored the advice and representations he had made and his apprehensions about the Belgian match. I have said that when I was the Minister responsible for sport I issued the same warnings to the secretary of UEFA, Mr. Bangeter, and wrote letters to him in 1979 saying that unless UEFA implemented our arrangements for crowd control, he would carry a heavy personal responsibility. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the very fact that UEFA put everybody in the dock — English football, Liverpool and everyone else — and has now said that no match will be played in Belgium for the


next 10 years is an admission that UEFA itself should not have placed that match in Belgium. UEFA stands condemned as much as anyone else. That body is trying to put itself in a white sheet, although it bears a heavy responsibility.

Mr. Heffer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to make the point that the New Civil Engineer of 6 June said:
The match should never have been played at the Heysel stadium. The arena breaks all European footballing safety rules and ignores entirely the lessons of Ibrox Park, Scotland, where 66 people" —
I thought it was 88—
died in very similar circumstances in 1971 … Investigations by NCE have shown complete confusion over who, if anybody, was responsible for checking structural safety at the Belgian stadium.
I do not support anyone who got involved in violence. I do not support the people who charged across the barrier. I do not condone any of that, but if that had happened in a stadiurn in this country it would have been controlled and there would have been a different outcome. There would not have been the terrible loss of life that happened in the Belgian stadium.
I asked people in Liverpool who had been at that match to write to me. I did not want people who had not been there to express opinions. The Liverpool Echo published 120 letters that it received and I got 30 or 40, or perhaps 50. I went through those letters carefully. Practically all of them pointed out that, before the match, there had been a carnival atmosphere. Certainly there was drinking. Supporters were drinking together and were exchanging scarves, favours and so on, as they would have done at a match in Liverpool between Everton and Liverpool.
I was told in the letters that there was a spirit of friendship. We must remember that some Liverpool supporters might have been a little hard-pressed to show friendship because, when they went to Rome, two of my constituents were stabbed after the match and were in hospital for some time. I had to intervene with the Italian authorities so that they could get their families there; the Italian authorities were excellent and helped my constituents a great deal. The average football supporter from Liverpool or Everton might have said, "Okay. Fair do's. It was a few nutters who did that. They did not represent the majority of Juventus or Italian supporters." Italians might say the same about any nutters who went from Britain.
There was a carnival atmosphere before the match. But then I am told that many people got into the match without tickets. A policeman from Manchester, a Liverpool supporter, told me in his letter that he saw the police disappearing immediately. He said that there were not enough police, and that the English police would have dealt with the situation differently. Let us get it on the record that what happened was not the fault just of the people who charged across the barrier but that there were other factors involved.
Segregation is something that the chairman of Liverpool football club understands very well. Liverpool has carried out segregation for years and has avoided problems with teams coming from outside Liverpool. I sent a memorandum based upon those letters to the Belgian authorities, who tell me that it will go before their parliamentary and judicial inquiry. I also sent copies to the Minister responsible for sport and to the spokesman on our

side of the House. I sent a copy too to the Popplewell inquiry, from whom I had a letter only today saying that the memorandum, and the evidence I had sent, would be considered carefully.
We have to consider this matter on the basis of the underlying factors. What is happening to football? Why are our young people getting involved in violence? What is the reason for it? It is not just a matter of the sale of alcohol. I am not against the Government's proposals, but do not let us believe that the Bill will solve the problem. To a large extent it will be irrelevant in dealing with the real problem.
There must be better policing at matches. Football grounds must be suitable. That means that money will have to be spent on the stadiums. I have been talking to many friends who used to go to matches in Liverpool before and just after the war. They have said that there was no segregation in those days. They mixed at every match.
Something has gone wrong and we need to look at that a little more closely, rather than merely saying it is a question of alcohol. We have io look at the point made by Mr. Smith, the chairman of Liverpool FC, when he talked about the role of the Right-wing National Front and other forces of that kind. There should be no cover-up of anyone, and that includes UEFA, the Brussels police and the Belgian authorities. There needs to be a better, more balanced assessment of what went on. Some of our press and the Italian press were appalling in talking about the "animals from Liverpool", the "brutal people" who went armed with weapons to batter people down. That is not true. In the television films, where does one see people with weapons in their hands battering people down?
Let us get it in proper perspective. It was a great tragedy and no genuine Liverpool or Juventus fans went there to cause touble of that kind. Let us not have a whitewash. We must go into it much more deeply than we have done up to the present. I support this Bill, but only as one minor step towards dealing with a very serious problem that is a reflection of the crisis in our society. That is the important thing. We have to analyse that crisis and then begin to deal with it.
In many respects there is a political solution. I would not expect right hon. and hon. Members opposite to accept the political solution I have in mind, but I argue that if we thought in terms of the brotherhood of man and cooperation rather than individual competition, that might lead to a better society.

Mr. Michael Lord: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on what has become a major issue in our national life. While I am prepared to accept that the control of alcohol at sporting events and the use, if they can be properly organised, of security arrangements such as identity cards may help control hooliganism, we must all accept that we face an epidemic in our society which will not be cured, or possibly even adequately controlled, by measures of that kind.
We call them football hooligans but what can we call them at cricket matches — cricket hooligans? What happens if they move on to other sports? Will they be called tennis hooligans or rugby hooligans? The common denominator is the word "hooligan", and while I do not absolve from blame football clubs which perhaps should have done more in the past, many other sectors of society


are to some extent to blame for allowing this kind of marauding thuggery to develop and create havoc and death at events designed for pleasure and relaxation. We must all share the blame — football clubs, players for their attitudes on the field, and the media to a great extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) dealt admirably with that aspect of sportsmanship.
But politicians, parents, police, social workers and magistrates must also take some responsibility. As politicians, we should have seen the situation developing and should have acted much more swiftly. Parents should exercise proper control over their children. Social workers should stop excusing behaviour for which there is no excuse under any circumstances, and our police should be allowed to take stronger action earlier and to use their powers of arrest to the full. Magistrates should be stricter in their sentencing, since only firm sentencing will deter.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not that a bit specious? Is it not the truth that those who act as hooligans are themselves responsible? Simply by spreading the blame, are we not relieving them of a portion of the blame for which they are utterly responsible?

Mr. Lord: I take the point made by my hon. Friend, but we are also to blame for not dealing with those hooligans as they should be dealt with. That is the point I am trying to make. In recent years, a change has come over our policing policies and also over the pattern of sentences given to offenders. Those two things together have contributed enormously to the present outbreak of violence and vandalism, and unless corrective measures are taken without delay, no amount of other measures, such as those proposed in this Bill, will stem the tide.
For many years now, accelerated by the riots in Brixton and Toxteth, and influenced by reports such as that of Lord Scarman on these events, policing policy in this country has changed. It has become the accepted and adopted policy that police no longer arrest automatically those they see committing a crime.
We ask the police — in my view quite wrongly — to make various subjective judgments as to whether apprehending a law-breaker is likely to lead to even more disturbance and law-breaking. In the aftermath of riots such as those at Brixton, perhaps sparked off by the arrest of a law-breaker and the subsequent arrival on the scene of many of his friends, this policy may have seemed sensible and plausible. But the end result is that criminals go unpunished, they teal their friends that times have changed and crime is easier, and the problem grows.
Similarly, in the control of mass picketing where there is violence, or of large crowds at football matches, the prime concern of the police — again understandably — is to contain violence, to control it, to disperse it and get it, as it were, "off their patch". The need to catch, arrest and convict individual law-breakers has become greatly subordinate to this policy of shepherding. Although in certain circumstances there may be good reasons for this kind of operation, it has the same effect on the law-breaker as it has on the person found stealing who is allowed to go unpunished. These people are able to return to their friends and their local pub to tell the story and to repeat the process, and the problem grows.
What deters most people who are considering a criminal act is the fear of arrest, conviction, prison and

disgrace. If people are able to go to football matches to cause trouble, injury and even death, feeling reasonably secure in the knowledge that they will not be caught and convicted, then clearly the problem will grow rapidly, as it has done.
I do not underestimate the difficulties which our police face, and they do a magnificent job. However, unless they are prepared, with our support, to carry out arrests at a much earlier stage, these problems will grow. There is also perhaps an even greater responsibility on our magistrates and judges. Bail is frequently too easily granted, and sentences too light. The net result is that the miscreant is too often quickly back home amongst his friends relatively unscathed.
If the hooligan who travels from London to Leeds or Liverpool to cause trouble at a football match is arrested and convicted and serves a prison sentence, however short, in Leeds or Liverpool, he will have a very different tale to tell his friends on his release, and this will be a very real deterrent and would help to reduce the problem. For far too long we have been too tolerant of public misbehaviour. There is a point, which we have long since passed, at which tolerance is read by certain people as weakness.
People in public life, such as politicians, are sometimes afraid of being firm on these issues in case they are thought to be harsh and uncaring. In reality, to be weak with the bullies and thugs is to be uncaring about the gentle and law-abiding people whose enjoyment and not infrequently lives may be ruined. It is the responsibility of this House to protect such people.
As I said earlier, I welcome these and any measures which may help in a difficult situation. But without sterner measures such as those I have outlined which will instill real respect for the law, I am afraid we are fighting this problem with one arm tied behind our back.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I have only one comment to make about the remarks of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), and I make it in the kindest possible way.
It is rather simplistic to believe that all that is necessary to solve the problem is to lock up people. We in Scotland have youngsters running about wearing as a badge of honour the fact that they have been locked up under the Government's short, sharp shock treatment, and it is significant that 80 per cent. of them return, not once or twice, but in some cases three times, to receive further doses of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to dispense. That is not the answer to the problem.
I know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is waiting desperately to hear me declare my interest in this matter. I am perhaps the only hon. Member who is a director of a senior football club. I am a director of Cowdenbeath football club — [HON. MEMBERS: "Senior?"] We had an instance of some trouble towards the end of last season, when a young man was caught climbing a boundary wall during a match. He was made to come back in to watch the rest of the game.
We are dealing with a minority problem. In that respect, and perhaps only in that respect, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). Unfortunately, we cannot legislate for a minority without damaging the majority. The House must accept


that if we introduce this legislation we cannot apply it only to a minority. It applies to everyone, and in that process we damage the majority. We have to do that knowing what we are doing. We cannot deceive ourselves into believing otherwise.
The legislation is based on part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and we have heard repeated references to the McElhone report. Frank McElhone was a close and dear friend of mine, and I pay tribute to the report that Frank produced. I say that because what I am about to say may not be so acceptable. Far too much is being claimed for part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. I do not believe that the McElhone report on its own would have solved the problem or would even have contributed to its solution in the way in which we have been able to deal with it in Scotland.
It is important just for a moment to paint in the background to the McElhone report. It was not the result of a build-up over a number of years of people drinking at football grounds in Scotland. It was a direct result of a match in Birmingham between Birmingham City and Glasgow Rangers. My right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Birmingham constituencies will remember the terrible riot that occurred. I. too, have cause to remember it. I speak about it with some feeling, and I come back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said about political elements.
The match took place on a Thursday night. I went on Scottish television with Alec Cameron, now sports writer for the Daily Record, who then worked for STV. I said on the Sunday that one of the problems in Scotland was the way in which we were conducting our politics. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will remember that at the time we in Scotland were going through a phase where everything bad that happened was the fault of the English, and we Scottish politicians had given that impression. Of course, if one of our football teams was defeated by an English team, it did not help matters.
In a sense, the McElhone report was our instant response to the Birmingham incident. This Bill is the Government's instant reaction to what happened at Millwall, Leeds and, unfortunately, Heysel stadium, which we all regret.
I repeat that far too much is being claimed for part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, and that is one of the reasons why I intervened in an earlier speech about how in 1976–77 we reformed the licensing laws in Scotland. In my view, that was a very important contributory factor in dealing with crowd problems at Scottish football matches. We reformed the licensing laws, and we built into the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 a provision whereby the police could if they wished ask the licensing board to close licensed premises two hours before a match and for a period of one hour after the match. I am not aware that that power has ever been exercised, but that was one piece of legislation.
Another piece of legislation was the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, with its designation and its powers to give the police the right to limit the numbers attending a game at a ground which had not yet been brought up to proper safety standards.
We have to add to that the McElhone report, which eventually became part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act.
In addition, it was decided that all offences arising from violence at football matches would be sent, not to the lower court, which in Scotland is the district court, but to the sheriff court, where the fines imposed are likely to be much heavier.
It is a combination of all those circumstances which has brought us in Scotland to the position that we see today.
It is important that I pay tribute to such Scottish football clubs as Aberdeen, Rangers, Celtic and Dundee United, and to some of the clubs in the lower divisions, such as Forfar Athletic and my own club, Cowdenbeath. I accept that Cowdenbeath is not a prominent club. It is a small club, but we have spent £250,000 inside the ground modernising it, rebuilding the terracing and making it safer. That is the story of a number of clubs in Scotland, which have made superhuman efforts to make sure that their grounds are safer and that those going to see matches may do so in relative safety.
I make one comment about the clubs, and I take my full share of the responsibility. It is time that the clubs exercised their right to refuse admission far more. There are fair numbers of people attending matches who should not be allowed into the grounds. That is not a matter for the police. Just as dance halls, theatres, and other places of entertainment do, football clubs have the right to refuse admission. Only if a person refused admission commits another offence does it become a matter for the police to deal with. It is time that the clubs accepted their responsibilities.
In my old constituency of Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth I had three senior clubs—Stirling Albion. Falkirk and East Stirlingshire. I was at the Falkirk ground on one occasion when a spectator, having watched one half of the game, began to make a nuisance of himself at the beginning of the second half. The chairman of the board instructed the secretary to give him back his money, and he was ejected from the ground. I pay tribute to clubs such as Falkirk which are strong enough to take that kind of action. I am talking about a club which does not get just a handful of spectators. It gets a fair number of people coming to see matches. It was not as though the trouble maker was isolated on the terracing. He had to be picked out of the crowd. He was picked out, given back his admission money and thrown cut of the ground. I suspect that he has never got back in to this day.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Speaking with his undoubted authority, will the hon. Gentleman go as far as to say that it should be made a condition of entry by football clubs that fans agree voluntarily to be searched for weapons or alcohol? It is very important that there should be that agreement to voluntary search, because frequently the police powers can operate only in certain specific and restricted areas.

Mr. Ewing: The powers in Scotland would have to be relaxed, if fans were to submit themselves to a voluntary search. Under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 the police have powers of compulsory stop and search, and fans do not have the right to refuse to be searched when they go into football grounds. My right hon. and hon. Friends who represent English constituencies would not accept the compulsory stop and search powers that prevail in Scotland.
I do not wish to speak for too long, because many of my colleagues have sat through the debate and are anxious to participate.

Mr. John Maxton: I do not want my hon. Friend—and I know that he does not want this—to leave the impression that the McElhone report was simply about banning drink. There was a lot more to it than that. It suggested, for example, that there should be all-seat stadiums. The Labour Government promised money to make Hampden park an all-seat stadium, but the Conservative Government withdrew that money.

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend, who has Hampden park in the heart of his constituency, is right in saying that one of the recommendations was all-seat stadiums. That is why I paid tribute to Glasgow Rangers, Aberdeen, Celtic and other clubs, which have all-seat stadiums, which have helped with the problem.
I shall now make a technical point, to which I hope the Minister will listen. As the Bill stands, clause 1 relates to clause 10 and makes the Bill inoperable. Clause 1 makes the staff on British Rail trains which travel only through England liable for prosecution. The staff should not be liable. It is nonsense to hold a driver, guard or ticket collector responsible for what happens on up to 15 coaches. Moreover, what happens when the train crosses the border? At that point, Scottish legislation applies. A train which travels from Scotland to England is covered by one piece of legislation while it is in Scotland, under which none of the British Rail staff on the train are responsible for any alcohol on the train—which is as it should be—but immediately it crosses the bridge at Berwick-on-Tweed it is covered by different legislation under which the staff all become liable for any alcohol on the train. That is nonsense and it is unworkable. The Minister had better turn his mind to that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I shall not give way, because I am anxious to conclude my speech.
It is not simple to extend the provision in part V of the Criminal Justice Act to trains and planes. It is not possible to do that, because we have no sanctions. The sanction available against public service vehicles in Scotland is that the driver is prosecuted, and if he is found guilty he is fined and loses his public service vehicle licence. The owner of the vehicle is reported to the traffic commissioners and can lose his operator's licence. Those are genuine sanctions. However, we cannot impose a sanction against British Rail by withdrawing its operator's licence to operate trains. Clause 1 in relation to clause 10 is unworkable.

Mr. John Carlisle: The House will have welcomed the words of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who has brought a deep knowledge of the workings of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 to the House. We are grateful for what he said in such a lucid and helpful way.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is chairman of the all-party football committee. I hope that he will forgive me for reminding him that I was in the Chamber when he spoke about membership of that committee. Members of the committee are privileged to serve under his chairmanship and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is absent, because I should like

to address some remarks to him. He made some relevant points about alcohol. Perhaps when he sees my name on the screen he will creep back, but obviously not from one of the bars of the House.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly welcomed the Bill. On the whole, it has received a welcome from those involved in football, and in the administration of the football league and the Football Association. However, it is right to express some concern that the House is being asked to pass the measure with such speed. I understand the Government's anxiety to get the measure on the statute book, but the subject is so important that to steamroller the Bill through the House in such a short period, when there is other important business to follow, is unfortunate. Having said that, I see no reason to panic.
The Government were right to react to the terrible scenes that some of us, including me, experienced personally, and that the majority saw on television. Certainly, the Prime Minister's intervention is welcome. I share the regret of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport cannot contribute to the debate. Such are the workings of the Government. Nevertheless, the efforts of my hon. Friend and his Department are being discussed, and they bring a sense of reality to our debate. Some of their proposals have received a great deal of criticism, especially those proposed in August. However, his wise words and the wise counsel of his Department have been well used by the Government.
It would be easy to make a speech, as some hon. Members have, in reaction to the events that I witnessed at the Luton-Millwall game in March, to express anger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) did, and to suggest remedies in that spirit. Those events were a harrowing experience for those who were present. Since then, many other people have suffered even more harrowing experiences both in the United Kingdom and abroad.
The House is right to pay attention to those events, which we hope never again to see at a football ground. They caused great fear and distress to my constituents and to those in surrounding areas on that terrible evening. The events can almost be described as terrorist in their nature. I take the point that on that evening some elements in the crowd had deep political convictions, which would have no place in our arguments in the House.
We must ask ourselves whether the Bill provides an answer. I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary described the Bill as "one such measure" that might be taken to counteract the problem of football hooliganism. He will understand that the Government must not rest on this laurel, which we shall presumably pass this evening, but pay attention to the various existing Acts and the penalties and deterrents available to the courts and magistrates for the offence of football hooliganism.
Hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), will recall that soon after the Chelsea-Sunderland game about 80 arrests were made. Some people were arrested only on the basis of a breach of public order. In many cases, the police did not have the legislation necessary to bring those particular criminals to justice. What was even more telling was a comment made by one of those arrested. A so-called


Crystal Palace fan, Mr. Donald Barratt, who was arrested and got away with a light sentence, laughed at it and almost said that he would do the same again.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would greatly assist control inside football grounds if it was made a criminal offence to invade the pitch?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes; and if anybody who set foot on a pitch was liable to prosecution, perhaps on a charge of trespass, that would be of considerable value. Perhaps the same could apply to cricket pitches. If cricket is to survive unfenced, as we hope it will, such measures may be necessary to counteract such scenes as we saw at Headingley a few days ago.
I agree with those who say that there is a link between hooliganism and unemployment. After the Luton game, several £1 coins were found in the opposition goalmouth. Like many, I do not like the new £1 coin. If hooligans are in such a state that they chuck them at the goalkeeper, then, while I agree that there probably is a link with unemployment, it may be considered to be tenuous.
Since the Luton game there have been the tragedies of Bradford and Brussels. Indeed, we seem to have talked about nothing but football in what should have been the cricket season. I welcome the Bill and this opportunity to air some of the varied views about its provisions that exist on both sides of the House.
The Bill is basically in two parts and confronts two problems—alcohol inside and outside grounds. There is no doubt that the measures proposed by the Government that will apply outside football grounds to avoid so-called fans and supporters arriving for games in a drunken condition are absolutely right. On that sad night at Luton, 99 per cent. of the fans who rioted, ran on to the pitch and caused such damage were drunk. The members of the Red Cross reported that virtually every so-called supporter whom they tended was drunk.
Trainloads of supporters left St. Pancras that afternoon drunk, and when they got to Luton and went through the town that afternoon, and were joined by others from their localities, the majority of them were drunk. The damage that they caused to the town and within the ground would not have been caused by sober people. They were drunk-crazed, and the drink gave them courage to act in a way that they would not otherwise have behaved.

Mr. Moynihan: I support my hon. Friend in making that point, but, as ever, being cautious about making international comparisons and drawing conclusions, is he aware that there has been a substantial increase in hooliganism in America in baseball, its national sport? An assessment of that hooliganism, including cases of death, has resulted in reports, not least from New York city, showing that 99 per cent. of all cases of hooliganism were related directly to alcohol. Further conclusions there resulted in the statement that the banning of alcohol was equally important inside and outside stadiums. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a vital consideration to bear in mind?

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note, in an international context, that the experience of others bears out some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point.
I welcome the proposal to refuse entry to, and to prosecute, those who arrive drunk. I also welcome the

measures that will be applied to public transport. Those with experience of these matters have all too frequently seen fans coming off coaches and trains armed with containers of drink, and of course the containers themselves become missiles. The measures are welcomed by many, especially the police.
The other part of the problem to which I referred — alcohol inside grounds — causes me disquiet in view of some of the measures that the Government are proposing. Those who attend football matches regularly will agree that the availability of drink inside grounds is already extremely restricted. Indeed, drink has not been generally available at Luton since 1979. Many clubs that have followed the McElhone recommendations on a voluntary basis, rather than wait to be obliged to adopt them, have stopped selling drink inside grounds. In other words, the availability of drink inside grounds is a tiny contributory factor to problems that occur inside grounds.
It is clear from a review of the history of football hooliganism in recent years — certainly since the measures introduced by the right hon. Member for Small Heath when he was in office; his measures had the full support of Conservative Members and have resulted in grounds being much safer — that the number of incidents inside grounds is much less than the media might lead us to believe. Most incidents occur outside grounds. As I said, the trouble is that people turn up for games full of drink. The availability of drink inside grounds—even if that were permitted under the Bill — represents a small part of the problem that we face.
We must accept that these measures will hit the revenue of clubs. Many clubs are surviving through the sponsorship of commercial interests and, in many cases, the generosity of certain directors and other members of companies, who tend to want to spend their money supporting their local football clubs rather than on buying, for example, a new Rolls-Royce or having a yacht in the south of France. It is their prerogative. If that is the way in which they want to spend their money, particularly with some of the lesser clubs — I say that reservedly, representing a first division club — good luck to them. Without their help those clubs would die. I sometimes get cross when I hear people criticise football directors who put their money into clubs and then tell the fans, "Frankly, we need your support as well."
Much money comes in through the provision of hospitality and other suites at matches. Because that: money is available to clubs and because alcohol is available in those boxes, there is a cross-subsidisation in that money comes in from various sources — from that means and from the entry fees paid by fans. We at Luton accept that our entry fees would be higher if money were not available from commercial activities, which include the sale and dispensing of alcohol at the bars within the ground.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill, as drafted, will permit drinking in boxes before and after the match and that, with screening, drinking can continue at half time? Only those sitting at the front parts of boxes will be prevented from drinking. The Bill will do little to affect drinking habits inside football grounds.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I appreciate his deep knowledge of the game —


[Interruption.] Any supporter of Chelsea must have a deep knowledge of the game of football. I am, nevertheless, worried about the sight of drinking at games.
Will the Minister explain the procedure at, say, a bar under the stand which has drink which is available to the public? If the bar is not within sight of the pitch, will it have to be closed? In many instances, those who go to watch games might prefer to stay in the bar than watch the match, considering some games.
The Minister will be aware that, under the law as it stands, clubs are obliged to renew their licences at regular intervals. We at Luton have to renew our licence every three months. I agree that it must be for the local magistrates and the police to decide whether licences should be renewed.
That leads me to my last three concerns. The Bill appears to indicate that clubs with a good behaviour record will be rewarded by being granted licences by magistrates and the police. It will surely be accepted that in many cases the incidents that take place inside the grounds, as happened in the Luton-Millwall game, are to a small extent only the responsibility of the home side and, indeed, of the away side if one considers football hooliganism to be part of society's sickness. I am concerned that magistrates in the Luton area, having noted the problem that occurred in the Millwall game, which was not of our making, might question the desirability of granting a licence to the Luton Town football club.
My second concern is about revenue. The Government, at a time when football is desperate for funds — and designation, rightly, is to be made to third and fourth division clubs — must accept the necessity to make revenue available. The measures before us will restrict the revenue going to clubs.
My last concern, which I raised earlier in an intervention, is that other sports may well be involved. Because the word "football" does not appear in the Bill, I am concerned that a fairly heavy-handed Home Secretary might be panicked, as the result of an odd instance in one sport on one ground, to include that ground in the provisions of the Bill.
Some of us have enjoyed the cricket at Lords in the last few days. Some 20,000 people daily have watched the cricket over four to five days, making a total of nearly 100,000 people. I read no newspaper reports of arrests as a result of drunkenness, and, having attended the game for three days, I saw no instance of drunkenness. If 100,000 people can enjoy themselves by using bars open in a limited way and bringing alchohol into the ground, as they are perfectly entitled to do, that sport has litle to fear. However, the Bill gives a future Home Secretary power to extend its provisions to such grounds. I hope that the Home Secretary will not be too anxious to act in that way.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend may be aware that the authorities who run the Rugby Football Union are apprehensive on this very point.

Mr. Carlisle: Having in my younger days enjoyed many drinks at Twickenham when we might have been called rugby hooligans—in the antics we got up to after drinking although, of course, it was never criminal — I understand my hon. Friend's comment. However, rugby's house is in good order.
I am glad that the House appears to be about to give the Bill a fair wind. It deserves to be supported not only by hon. Members but by those beyond the House. It is to be hoped that football will be a better game for it.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The general mood of the House seems to be that the Bill is too little too late, and that attitude is absolutely right. Successive hon. Members have said that drink is not entirely to blame for the violence that takes place and for the incidents that have been mentioned. While there is much that is good about the Bill, there is no doubt that it is so easy to get through the loopholes that it will do little to solve the problem.
Many members of the football group went to White Hart lane at the invitation of Tottenham Hotspur two weeks ago. It was interesting to observe that after one match the police asked the supporters to leave the litter in the away supporters' area behind the goal, 80 per cent. of which comprised containers of alcohol which was bought outside the ground. It came from local supermarkets and off-licences. Of the total, 20 per cent. comprised plastic cartons which can be bought with a pint of beer, but the remainder had been bought outside the ground.
The Bill does not state how to prevent the perennial problem of 15 and 16-year-old kids invading off-licences, because that is where the booze comes from. They pile into an off-licence 25-strong. One makes an attempt to buy a packet of crisps or something similar. The rest run in mob-handed and grab bottles of sherry, wine or such-like from the shelves. If these youngsters go into an off-licence, they even buy drink. Four of them chip in 70p each for a bottle of sherry, which is sufficient to get four 15-year-old kids drunk. They get that on the way to the ground. They get it not on a coach, a bus or a train, but when they are walking to the ground. They are often home supporters.
If the police have powers to close every off-licence, they will have to do so over a wide radius in order to close every outlet. It is not necessarily a pub from which supporters get drinks. People who go into pubs, while they may not be experienced boozers, can take one or two pints. They do not go into the pub until 2 o'clock, and the match kicks off at 3 o'clock. The problem occurs with under-age kids of 15 and 16, because of the cheap booze that they are able to get. Nor does the problem of booze arise inside the ground with the football supporters.
I wish to read to the House a letter which has been sent to me—I always believe in listening to experts—from a Mr. Jack Wood of Exeter place, Sheffield, who operated a turnstile at Sheffield Wednesday football ground for many years. He says:
It's all right until three o'clock. Until then the coppers check them for beer cans and weapons before they come through. But then what? At kick-off time all the bloody coppers climb over the turnstile and … off to watch the match.
I apologise for his colourful language.
Then about 3.15 you can hear them coming, marching out of the pubs, clapping and shouting as the word goes round, they are here! … Looking for trouble, deliberately going in at the wrong end, and not a copper in sight.
He then mentions identification cards, by which the hooligans can be singled out. This expert says:
Just before the kick-off the turnstiles are packed like the neck of a funnel. If a bloke is jammed in and you refuse to let him through there is no way he can back out because of the pressure of the crowd behind him. There they are. Packed like sardines. They have all had a few and you have GOT to let him through. My mates at a semi-final were offered as much as £20 by Spurs


supporters without tickets. What could they do? They simply put their foot on a pedal otherwise there would have been a riot. There are no checks on turnstile figures at an all-ticket match and there are always hundreds of extra fans packed in. You can't shut the sliding gates to stop those without identification cards. It's too jam-packed with fans.
There is the voice of experience of somebody who has to work at a ground and face the drunks and the howling mobs.
Let us analyse some of the reasons that the away supporters often go on the rampage. I happen to be a football supporter who does not go exclusively into the directors' box. We have heard the voices of many hon. Members in the debate who sit in the directors' box well away from all the beery belchers, and worse, and all the swearing and punch-ups that happen behind the goal. I wish that a few more Members of Parliament would take the trouble to go to watch their teams away from home. They should pay to go in and see what one has to put up with.
I was at Manchester City's ground on an occasion this season when an empty lager can full of urine sailed past my ear and smashed into the skull of a young lady sitting in front of me. That was the fault not just of the thug who threw it but also of the police because they were round the edge of the ground but none of them were round the back of the stand looking for the idiots who throw that sort of stuff.
I was also at Chelsea's ground with the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). As we were sitting there, we noticed that there was no segregation. Gangs of thugs carrying pints of beer were strutting round the stand threatening anybody who dared to say a word to them. They had bought the booze round the back and carried it in. The problem was twofold: there was no segregation of supporters and there were no police. The police once more were round the edge of the pitch. That is no use. The police must be in the crowd. They must be where the two sets of supporters meet. All too often, the clubs segregate the supporters who stand, but they do not segregate the supporters who sit down. We were very concerned, because elderly people, women and children were with us. The Chelsea club made no attempt to segregate away supporters in seats. We were at the mercy of thugs strutting round, and ultimately that is bound to boil over.
Quite often, there is no proper segregation at Manchester United. I visited Coventry when our supporters climbed over the fence and everyone condemned them for it. But they did it because Coventry sold too many tickets — 2,000 for a ground that holds only 1,000. People were crammed like sardines and they had to climb over the fence.
The same happened at Leicester, where our supporters were ripped off. The club charges more for tickets for away supporters than for home supporters and then sticks the away supporters in an inferior part of the ground, often behind a floodlight pylon where they cannot see the game. At Nottingham Forest we were jammed like sardines looking through wire netting and from behind floodlight pylons, even though there was plenty of room in the remainder of the ground. These clubs do not care, they do not cater for us and they do not take any notice of the problems. The same has happened with Grimsby and Notts County.
Supporters who go away to watch a game are often treated like animals. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) should have said that one reason why away supporters ran on the pitch at Luton was that 8,000 fans turned up and Luton tried to cram them into a space large enough for only 5,000. The fans ran on to the pitch to save themselves from being squashed. That is how the riot started. The initial spark is often caused because away fans are treated like animals. They are met at the station and escorted through the streets like prisoners of war. It is not unusual to see a copper give an away fan a cuff because he does not like the look of him or because he has stepped off the pavement.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who represents the police in this House, spoke about search. Surely he does not really believe that a football fan would dare to refuse to be searched by a policeman and quote the law to him. Really, the hon. Gentleman should go to a few matches in disguise, get behind the goal and see what happens. If he believed what he said, he would believe anything.
The pent-up resentment and poor facilities, combined with the greed of clubs which rip off away supporters—who they know will turn up only once that season — often cause much of the trouble. If the Office of Fair Trading looked at the deal that away supporters get from clubs, it could present an interesting report.
The Government's attitude towards football is entirely different from their attitude to law and order in general. When there was a problem on the picket lines during the miners' strike, money was no object. No one said that the National Coal Board should pay for the police services. No one said that the NCB should pay to protect property or to provide police escorts for working miners. The Government paid for all that. Yet when it comes to law and order at football matches the attitude is very different.
The Government say that the clubs must pay for policing inside the grounds. The clubs have no say in it, because the chief constable in each area decides how many police should turn up. I have known occasions when the chief constable of south Yorkshire has had more policemen than spectators at matches. I am not. exaggerating. At one match against Southend, that club sent a coachload of 22 supporters but there were 35 policemen standing behind them watching the game. It is nice for the coppers to have a night off to watch the game. I know that Sheffield United has refused to pay a bill for policing, so the police authority is taking that club to court.
The Government's attitude towards law and order in football grounds is quite different from their attitude to law and order in other areas. The Government offer no cash. They do not say that innocent people attending football matches should be protected. They said that working miners had the right to go to work in peace, yet clubs have to pay for policing inside the grounds.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Quite right.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but those people are entitled to protection. I pay my rates and I am entitled to have the police protect me inside a football ground. The police do not do that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Is he aware that the 11 league clubs in London last season paid £700,000 for policing inside the grounds, yet those clubs also have to pay rates?

Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government should come up with the means to pay for that.
As I said earlier, in 1972 I introduced a Bill to establish a football betting levy board because football was going through a financial crisis. I still believe that that is the only answer to the problem. In 1968, horse racing was in trouble because people were watching the races on television rather than attending the meetings. They either went to the betting shop to place their bets or telephoned their bookies. The people running the tracks did not have sufficient funds for prize money or to maintain the stands.
The then Labour Government set up the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which takes a slight percentage of every bet. Members of the board include bookies, breeders, track owners, the Jockey Club, and so on. They plough back that cash into the race tracks to provide cheaper admission, to make the tracks safer, for better prize money and for better breeding. That has saved horse racing. If there is a bad winter with snow on the ground for two months and no racing, the sport does not die. That is the answer to the football problem.
The problem of booze is only one aspect — the main problem is safety in the grounds, and that cannot be achieved without segregation, which requires a great deal of cash. It is all very well to talk about the football trust. Without blowing my trumpet too loudly, that was something that emerged from the football crisis in 1968. At that time it was questioned whether the mark-the-ball competitions were legal. I understand that a Member of the House of Lords questioned their legality. I am not saying that a deal was stiched up between certain people, but the word went round that, if no one insisted that the competition was illegal, there would be some return of cash to football. I shall not go into the winks and the nods, but the system has worked well.
The problem is that, to obtain cash from the football trust, a club has to put money up front. It has to pay out all the money and then it gets a percentage back later. The small clubs cannot afford that, because they already live hand to mouth. There is a great deal of money in football. For example, the Spurs sponsored boxes bring in £500,000 a year — that is the club's income.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I am interested in the point that my hon. Friend is making. He has a great deal of experience in these matters, so I hope that he can answer a question. Is it not the case that Association football today is stricken with dire poverty? Is it not true that the number of spectators has shrunk enormously? Yet we still have the same club capacity as we had years ago. Is not the root of the trouble the fact that there are too many clubs offering football on the market?

Mr. Ashton: From a market or capitalist viewpoint, I suppose that my hon. Friend could be right, but he should go to Darlington club and say that. He should remember that Darlington is a marginal seat, and it would not be happy if the Government introduced legislation that put the club out of business. The people of Darlington might not go often to the club ground to watch Darlington play, but they do like to hear Darlington's name read out at 5 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon on the football results. Apart from elections, it is the only time that Darlington gets a mention on television. Quite rightly, Darlington is proud of that.
Some of the smaller clubs have a wonderful family atmosphere and do not have any trouble. Indeed, if there were two or three hooligans at Darlington the trouble would be catching them — there are so many empty spaces the coppers would have to run fast to catch them. A betting levy provision would save the Darlingtons of this country. Its name appears on the football pools coupons. Without such clubs, we would be reduced to Australian football and there would not be a great deal of interest in that.
There is a provision in the Finance Bill to reduce the tax on football betting and give it to the clubs. I think that we could increase the tax on football betting. The average punter would not care whether it was 43p or 44p in the pound. If the tax on football betting was increased by 1p in the pound, that would bring in about £10 million a year and the punter would hardly notice. That extra cash, providing it went to a statutory board under the Home Office, not a voluntary football trust, with representatives on it of the clubs, the supporters clubs and perhaps the players union, could be used for safety and segregation. That could be the answer to the problem. I hope that the Minister will mention that when he winds up.
Unless something is done about that problem, we shall see the market economy, in which 25 or perhaps 40 clubs go to the wall. From my constituency I can get to Leeds, Huddersfield, Doncaster, Barnsley, Lincoln, Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield United, Mansfield, Nottingham Forest and Notts County within half an hour. Those towns love their teams and the only way the teams survive is through the bobs and tanners they get collecting door to door. They are very proud of their team and their status. If I asked some of my hon. Friends which borough was the fourth largest in the country and never had a football team in first-class football, they could not name it. I shall tell them — Croydon. Nobody has ever heard of Croydon in the north. They think it is a little village, but it is nearly as big as Newcastle or Nottingham. If there had been a Croydon United, everybody would have heard of the town. In the north, they hardly know it exists. That is the value of a team to a town.
A great deal of damage has been done to the image of football in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned, when Everton went to Rotterdam, there was not a single arrest and nothing went wrong. To punish, or to suggest punishing, innocent people is something that the House should never condone. Yet all too often, when there is a fault, a crime or a happening at a football match immediately the cry is, "Punish everybody." The supporters of Norwich committed no crime. They were totally innocent. They had a perfect record and had never been in trouble, but immediately after the Liverpool problem in Brussels all English clubs were banned.
Now the good people of Norwich — there are two marginal seats in Norwich, so the Government had better watch what they do—have to see their club forfeit their right to play in Europe next year after having done magnificently and won the league cup. It is the same for Everton. It won the championship for the first time in 20 years. It is not the fault of the club or the supporters, but the innocent are immediately punished. That builds up resentment. They are simple people who go to football matches and they are simple people behind the goal at Norwich. Those people will say, "If we get punished like this for nothing, to hell with it, we might as well do


something." It is a natural teenage reaction to say, "If you are going to punish us when we have done nothing wrong, we will damn soon do something wrong to get even."

Mr. John Mark Taylor: The hon. Gentleman used the expression "simple people". It is not an expression I would use. Some people have referred to football as working man's opera. The same might also be said of rugby league. Will the hon. Gentleman say why there are no comparable problems in rugby league?

Mr. Ashton: Rugby league attracts far fewer people, and it is a far more violent game. Probably, as I said earlier, there is also a surfeit of clubs in a small area. They tend to come from the same background. Rugby league tends to come from mining communities—in fact all the clubs are from mining communities. Most of the thugs in places such as Featherstone, Pontefract and Batley go to watch Leeds United. They know that that is where they will find violence, and they have to go only 5 or 10 miles to get there. Punishing innocent clubs and spectators will rebound in the long run.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) knows a great deal about football. I agree with him on two points. First, the FIFA and UEFA reaction in banning all English clubs indefinitely was excessive. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right in seeking financial help for football, particularly for the grounds, from something like the Horserace Betting Levy Board. Representing Newmarket, I know a little about that.
However, when the hon. Gentleman got outside the area of football and into the area of policing, I am afraid that he led the House into error. During the miners' strike the fact is that at no stage were the police taken into the private property of the National Coal Board. They dealt with the pickets' actions on the public highway. In the same way, if there were interference with the lawful right of football fans to go to a football match on the public highway, it would be the duty of the police to prevent that obstruction. They would do it with no charge to any club, for that is the public and criminal law which the police must enforce. But it is an entirely different matter when the police are asked to go inside the private places of the football clubs. In those cases, the clubs should pay.

Mr. Ashton: It is not as if the police are asked to go into the ground. They insist, and tell the club how many police constables they will send to the ground.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that he does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Ashton: It is true.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The police will go into a ground, first, if there is reason to believe that some criminal action is taking place in that private place, and, secondly, if they are invited to go in by the clubs to assist in maintaining order.

Mr. Ashton: Sheffield United is being taken to court by the police authority because the local police insist on sending more police constables than are needed.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman states that as a hypothesis. I do not know the facts, but my guess is that the police agreed to the request of Sheffield United that

they should provide adequate manpower to police the occasion. The police sent the appropriate manpower and then sent the bill, and Sheffield has refused to pay. I suspect that that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry, but we have had enough on that issue.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will make his own speech later.

Mr. Boyes: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Boyes: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to concede this point. As the vice-president of Hartlepool, I can assure him that the police determine the number that they think should be in the ground. Recently the police bill was almost as high at the total gate money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that point.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I think that when he replies my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office — if he ventures into this area — will confirm that I have correctly stated the law and practice.
I have an interest to declare in the matter, but I suppose only remotely. For four and a half years I was the Minister with responsibility for sport — a small trade union in this House. I failed to find the answers to violence at football matches. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) also failed to find the answers. It may be that my hon. Friend the present Minister with responsibility for sport has failed, too. As a consequence we are confronted with this Bill. It is a disagreeable Bill. I do not particularly like it. But it is a necessity.
I have another interest in that I am a life vice-president of a Manchester United supporters club. That may give the answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who inferred that I had no knowledge of football. I take a keen interest in it.
Thirdly, of course, I have an interest to declare in the police service.
My overall view of the Bill is that it is like many other things we have seen over recent years, in that the Prime Minister saw clearly what needed to be done in the national interest, and got her Cabinet to agree with her, but that subsequently the weevils got at the text. As a result what started out and should have remained a simple, clear Bill banning alcohol at football matches has been turned into a dog's dinner with a whole infrastructure of exemptions, conditions on exemptions, appeals against conditions and police overrides of magistrates' courts' decisions. I shall support the Bill. I have been asking for it for many years. But it lacks the essential simplicity of the Scottish measure, which has the merit of being both intelligible and enforceable. This Bill is less than intelligible in many of its parts. It is exceedingly complicated, it will be difficult for the police service to enforce, as I shall demonstrate, and it will not help the relationship between the police service and football fans.

Mr. Tony Banks: What does the hon. Gentleman think would be the view of the police if all football league


matches were moved to a 10.30 kick-off on Sunday morning, which would remove the problem of the availability of alcohol?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall not speculate on that proposition, because it is not the one before the House; but the Police Federation has said, and I support it, that it would like to see more matches taking place when pubs are not open. Therefore, I go some way with the hon. Gentleman, although I am not sure about Sunday mornings. The House will be debating that at a later stage.
As many others have said, the legislation is long overdue. I and the Police Federation asked for it to be introduced 11 years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago and five years ago, and at every annual conference of the Police Federation during that period. Yet at every stage, our pleas were rejected. Now, however, the Bill has been introduced because of the 38 deaths at Brussels, the hundreds of people injured and, in the case of the police, because they have been taking far too many casualties.

Mr. Denis Howell: I hope to show, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make a contribution to the debate, that the Bill has nothing to do with what went on or goes on in Europe. That is one of its deficiencies. It says nothing about boats or planes and alcohol. It has nothing to do with the deaths in Brussels.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman may be right in his view, but I am saying that one of the factors that propelled the Bill into the House was what happened in Brussels. That is beyond dispute.
I am glad that at last the Home Office, which previously repudiated the judgment of the police service, has come round to the point of view of the police. Yet it is also worth recalling that when the Scottish Act was passed, the police asked that it should be applied to England as well. We found it absurd that the Scottish police should have powers to stop coachloads of football louts travelling south from Glasgow to Newcastle when the English police had no powers to stop them once they were across the border into this country. Once again, however, the Home Office rejected our plea. Although I went along and discussed it, my request to the Home Secretary was turned down.
Tonight we have the opportunity to listen again to the views of the police service. Their advice was rejected before and I am willing to bet that it will be rejected again. The consequence may be similar to those that followed rejection of that advice before—we shall come to rue it.
I welcome the fact that we shall put on the statute book, no doubt in the next two or three weeks, an Act that will help to reduce alcohol-related problems at football matches. But I agree with those who have said that alcohol is not the sole cause of the problem. There is far more to it than that.
I pick out one detail. Why are we to ban alcohol at football matches, but not the taking of glue into football grounds? Glue can be sniffed and cause the same sort of intoxication and dementia as alcohol, but glue is to be ignored. Here is an illustration of what happens when we rush through legislation without thinking carefully about how the problem should be dealt with. As far as the police are concerned, I am anxious about four points. First, there is the unintelligibility of parts of the Bill. Recently, I have been having a look at the police training manuals that arise

from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. They stand several feet high off the floor. There will have to be careful instruction of the police on the application of the Bill, adding to that pile, because there are parts of it that simply are not intelligible.
Secondly, I am concerned about the Bill's inconsistency.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the practical enforcement of the Bill. I remind hon. Members who have talked about their experiences of standing there while bottles of urine are thrown past them and about the violence that they have seen that the police have to do that all the time. They cannot argue. They are there and they suffer casualties. Therefore, their advice to the House should be listened to carefully.
Fourthly, I am concerned about the possible effect of the Bill on the relationships between the police and the football clubs and their fans.
Turning then to the question of intelligibility, I regret that the Government have allowed themselves to be talked into the infrastructure of exemptions. I should like to see those clauses out of the Bill completely. Let us ban alcohol simply and clearly. Let us avoid the whole business of building in the ability of clubs to apply for exemptions, and of the magistrates' courts placing conditions on those exemptions, the provision whereby there can be an appeal to the county court if the club does not like the conditions applied to the exemptions, the power of a police officer over the rank of inspector to override the exemption, the power of the individual constable, if he judges that the use of the exemption in practice—the opening of the bar—will lead to drunkenness, to close it. All that is to import into what should be a simple and straightforward Act complications and confusions that do not serve the interests of the game or the police service.
I am indebted to the Government for their courtesy to the House in that Ministers have provided the notes on clauses in the Vote Office — a most helpful procedure when we are trying to get the Bill through all its stages in a single sitting. The notes on clause 3 say:
There is also a power for a police inspector … to suspend an exemption order temporarily (thereby prohibiting sales of alcohol), if in his opinion there is a likelihood of trouble developing at a particular match".
Similarly, the notes say that clause 6
gives a constable in uniform power during a designated sporting event to close any bar or bars if he considers the sale of alcohol from them detrimental to the orderly conduct or safety of spectators.
I do not doubt that the police will try to apply those powers in a sensible fashion, but I am doubtful whether it is right in principle to place upon the police officer the onus and the authority to override the decision of a magistrates' court. As far as I am aware, that is a serious innovation in our public law. My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to correct me, but I am not aware that there is any other case in British law in which a police officer has the authority to override the decisions of a magistrates' court in any particular circumstance. That is to ask of the police more than they should be asked to do.
I turn now to the inconsistencies in the Bill. There is the provision that alcohol may not be taken into the grounds unless it is going into the changing rooms, the club rooms, the catering storerooms, the private boxes or the restaurants. How will the police cope with that? Parliament says, "Thou shalt not take alcohol into sports


grounds", but it is all right to take it to the changing rooms, the catering storerooms or the private boxes. That imports a complexity which is unhelpful to the law.
Similarly, no alcohol is to be drunk at the ground unless the place where it is consumed is not in direct view of the pitch. I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is absurd. It will be extremely difficult for the police to distinguish between one group of people who are allowed to drink and another group who are not.
Some of my hon. Friends have spoken with some knowledge of the need to provide revenue to the clubs. When I was the Minister with responsibility for sport, I heard and sympathised with the pleas of football clubs that they could not expect to raise large sums of money unless they could offer their sponsors and customers an opportunity to enjoy themselves in private boxes. I understand that point of view. However, we will be creating class distinction in drinking if we allow different treatment for different groups at the same football match. Such an arrangement will be inequitable and unworkable. It will create great difficulties for the police.

Mr. Robert Hicks: At Lord's cricket ground, when the Mound stand bar is closed at certain times of the day, one can always get a drink in the pavilion or the Warner stand. Does my hon. Friend believe that that anomaly should be put right?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am not talking about Lord's; I am discussing the Bill. Of course, the Bill could be extended that far, but that will depend on the Minister's judgment on designation. He will take into account the circumstances at Lord's cricket ground, Twickenham rugby ground or Wigan Rugby League ground.
The Bill is clear. It says, "Thou shalt not drink on the terrace, but thou mayest drink in the directors' box if it is out of sight of the pitch." The police have a lot on their plate. They are short of manpower and over-burdened, yet we ask them to enforce such distinctions between one group of people and another.
I shall support the Bill, but the Minister is asking more of the police service than the police service should reasonably be expected to do. It is inconsistent to create one set of rules for the terrace and another for the private boxes. Indeed the Government have conceded that point. That is why they ruled that, even if directors get an exemption from the local magistrates, they will not be able to drink in direct view of the pitch. Presumably, they will have a screen to hide behind while they down their gins and tonic. That exception gives the game away. The Government are too embarrassed to allow directors to drink in view of the drinkless crowds below them. They know that would lead to trouble. However, it is all right to drink out of sight of the pitch. That is legislative humbug. It will lead to more, not fewer, problems for the police at football matches.
I turn now to enforcement. We are told in the notes on clauses that clause 7 provides the police with the necessary powers to enforce this legislation. These include the power to enter any part of a football ground and to search people entering or inside the ground when an offence is suspected. We have heard from several experienced hon. Members about the pressures at the turnstiles, the enormous crushes that can occur and the great difficulty of stopping people and searching them.
What we have not heard, and what I wish the House to hear, is precisely what a police officer is required by law

to do before he undertakes the search that the Government tell us will be adequate to enforce the Bill. The police officer must take account of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which my hon. Friend the Minster and I know almost by heart. The Act states that if a police officer wishes to stop and search someone, he must first state his name and number and then the purpose of the search. He must then ensure, except where there are difficulties, that he can make a record of that stop and search. It is true that the Art provides that, where it is impracticable to make a record, the officer need not do so, and of course that will apply at football matches. I intervened earlier to ask whether there could be an agreement with clubs to make it a condition of entry that fans should submit to voluntary searches precisely to get over that problem. I did so because my hon. Friend the Minister, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), said:
Before making the search the constable must identify himself and give the object and grounds of the search; following the search he must make a written record of the search, unless it is not practicable to do so … Nor does the Act in any way preclude the police or stewards searching those entering football grounds with their consent or because the club makes this a condition of entry."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 571.]
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister will be advising clubs to do what I asked the right hon. Member for Small Heath to accept. There are many reasons for this, but I shall give only one. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act states that a police officer who suspects that someone is carrying an offensive weapon, stolen goods, or, in this case, alcohol into a football ground can require him to remove his overcoat, gloves and jacket, but he cannot require him to remove his hat.
That is one absurdity of the Act, but how much more absurd it will be when one is dealing with a football fan, who need only stick a miniature bottle of alcohol — such as one sees on aeroplanes — under his cap, and the police officer can do nothing about it unless he removes the fan from that public place to a private place in which he can be asked to take off his headgear. My hon. Friend must know that that is how the Act will work in this case.
Somewhere between here and the other place my hon. Friend must ensure that the police are not so inhibited. They must not be required to take to a private place those whom they wish to remove their headgear so that they cart enforce the Bill which my hon. Friend commends to the House. That is only one example of the enforcement difficulties that the police will experience.
The Bill is urgently needed and overdue. But I wish that we had not been compelled to rush through all its stages in one sitting. I appreciate the pressures of the forthcoming football season, but I do not believe that the demands of football clubs, pools companies and television companies should take precedence over the need to consider legislation carefully and to produce a Bill that can be enforced in the long run. We are not going to war; we are simply trying to deal with the problems of football matches. We could have made the Bill more effective, comprehensible and enforceable if we had taken a day or two longer to get it right.

8 pm

Mr. Ken Weetch: I shall make a short contribution to the debate. I declare an interest as vice-president of Ipswich Town supporters club. I have been watching the game for 30 years and I am appalled at the way in which it has degenerated over the years.
The Bill aims to control the possession of alcohol at football grounds. It attempts to limit drunkenness and to control the nature of the crowd before it enters the ground. It tries to control the consumption of alcohol by people travelling to the ground and before entry. The trouble is that the problem has been with us, in all its ugliness, for a long time, yet we have responded in haste. The problem has been with us for a good many years, but the Bill bears all the marks of being drafted in a hurry. It will have a limited impact upon the problem. I do not think that it will work very well and I have major reservations about it.
The assumption behind the legislation is that drunken behaviour contributes to football hooliganism and that controls will help to improve matters. I shall make some preliminary observations and describe a violent incident in Ipswich some time ago. We do not have much trouble at Ipswich, but there have been some ugly scenes. The worst that I have witnessed was three or four years ago, at the opening match of the season, when Ipswich played Newcastle. That morning I had held an advice bureau in the town hall in the centre of town. I was due to see some elderly people, but they did not arrive. When I looked out, I saw that some of the Newcastle fans had arrived early. They were drunk and being sick all over the road. They were tipping liquor about the place, smashing bottles, fighting and indulging in general hooliganism.
When one analyses the causes of that trouble, they boil down to two. The fans were allowed to arrive too early. What were they doing in Ipswich early in the morning when the match was not due to start until 3 o'clock? The fans had time to waste. They were walking round looking for trouble because they had time on their hands. The trouble had nothing to do with drink at the ground, or even in the vicinity of the ground. The fans bought the drink in the supermarket and sprayed it about the streets not 10 yds from where they bought it. That drunkenness at Ipswich occurred away from the ground, and I cannot see anything in the Bill that will control such behaviour. It could occur again in spite of the legislation.
The first part of the Bill deals with transport. The first clause deals with liquor on a public service vehicle on the road or on the railway, but the worst trouble occurs at Ipswich when five or six people hire a beaten-up old van. They arrive in the town with crates of drink in the back. By the time that the jalopy arrives in Ipswich its passengers are as drunk as lords. They fall out of the back and sides of the van. I do not see how the Bill will solve that problem. Such people come in swarms. The Suffolk police do a very good job, but nothing in the Bill will tackle that problem.
Football violence is a complex problem. I accept the Government's explanation that this is a piecemeal approach to a difficult problem, but I wonder how piecemeal it is. I believe that it will be ineffective in tackling the main source of the difficulties. The innocent will be punished with the guilty. I suppose that that is inevitable. Most people can go to a football match, have a bottle of beer, and perhaps even another bottle if they

lose the three points, without causing any harm to anybody. However, today we are legislating against the minority whose loutish behaviour disgraces the game.
When I read about the serious trouble in Cambridge some time ago, I realised that some of the people who orchestrate the trouble are very sinister indeed. They are not drunks. Some of the hard men behind the trouble are stone cold sober. In some cases such people organise the violence. I am not arguing to what extent that occurs, but it is a factor.
In one area the Bill is absolutely correct. I refer to clause 9(6), which states:
This Act does not apply to any sporting event or proposed sporting event—
(a) where all competitors are to take pan otherwise than for reward, and
(b) to which all spectators are to be admitted free of charge.
The assumption underlying the clause is that money corrupts the game in Britain. The assumption is that it is not a game any more, but a commercial business. Some of the hard people in the game act in the way that people always act when large sums of money are involved. Some aspects of the game fill me with dismay. The game has not only been corrupted by money. It is big business, involving avarice and greed. People are paid—players and managers alike—far beyond what they are worth.
Some of my unemployed constituents—if they can afford to go to a match—looking at the game from the terraces and knowing that the players can be paid as much as £1,000 a week become discontented, and no wonder. They feel that it is easy money, and that has corrupted the game. Think of the transfer fees. For years and years the clubs have taken from the game without thinking of providing decent facilities for the supporter on the terraces. Often supporters are herded off the terraces like cattle. Who cares, so long as they have paid their money? Nobody. Only when the game has reached a crisis do people think about it.
I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) to draw attention to the structure of the game. Basically, what is wrong is that the game is in dire poverty, for one reason—the market has shrunk and dwindled. It will continue to dwindle, but the number of clubs will remain the same. The costs for each club have grown, but their revenues have shrunk. Only when we face that basic problem will we cure that poverty and make the game a decent one for spectators.
The main root of the problem lies elsewhere. We have not faced the basic problems of football violence. The details are complex, but the profile of the problem is simple. There is a hard core of people who are determined to ruin the game through hooliganism. They do not come to watch the game. They come to look for trouble and to fight. We know that those people exist. We need first to identify them, secondly to apprehend them, especially if they are frequent offenders, and thirdly to punish them.
The problem is one of social terrorism by a minority, and the solution requires a parallel with military intelligence. We need to know who these people are and where they go. We must be vigilant and monitor these people so that on any Saturday afternoon we know where the flotsam and jetsam are drifting to make trouble. With that kind of advance intelligence it would almost be possible to plot a graph from the fixture list to discover where trouble is likely to occur. It would be possible to eradicate soccer hooliganism if we were in possession of


such intelligence so that the police could mobilise their resources and take action. The problem is not insuperable, but we have not faced it in a strategic way.
In analysing the problem, one should not simply consider the bad areas. It might be better to consider the places where the situation is good and see why it is good. I do not recall much serious trouble in Ipswich in the 10 years during which I have been watching Ipswich Town football club. The reason is that someone has thought through the whole problem strategically.
When the visiting fans alight from their coaches or trains, the police are waiting to escort them to the ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is concerned about the way in which the police treat visiting fans, but the citizens of Ipswich are very glad that visiting fans are met at the railway station and escorted to the ground. When they get to the ground, they are segregated in a big wire cage. In effect, a large crocodile from the train is taken under escort to the turnstiles and then put into a cage. The fans watch the game from inside the cage and when it is over a voice on the Tannoy tells everybody to stand firm, as the visitors will be let out of the ground first. The home supporters remain while the visiting fans are escorted back to the train. One wonders whether it is worth watching a football match if such a process has to be endured, but very little trouble arises, because strategically the crowd is under control.
After reading the Bill I went to see the managing director of Ipswich Town football club and its legal advisers. We went through the Bill clause by clause. There should not be one law for the rich and one law for the poor when it comes to drinking at football grounds. I would not argue that for one moment, but if there has never been trouble from a certain area of the football ground, experience suggests that a different sort of discretion should be exercised there than in another area where trouble may have arisen. When there is bother at Portman road, Ipswich Town's football ground, it always comes from the north stand. Consequently, the police have shut down the bars in that stand. The good clubs in this country have put many of these measures into operation already.
The proposals covering executive boxes at football grounds will be a body blow to Ipswich Town. The boxes are within sight of the Portman road ground, but there is a let-out, because they are not licensed premises and thus do not come within the terms of the Bill, which cover only licensed areas from which one can see the match. I may be wrong, but my legal advice suggests that that is the case. The proposals in clause 3(1)(b), however, will seriously affect Ipswich Town football club, because the drink sold in the executive boxes has to be brought from the licensed premises in other parts of the ground and the off-sales provisions in the Bill will prevent that.
There has never been any trouble in the executive boxes. People come to watch the match, they have a drink and they go home. A magistrate or whoever else looks at this problem should exercise the utmost discretion in such situations. Where there has never been any bother, one should let sleeping dogs lie rather than look for trouble. I sympathise with the police when they are trying to get the fans into the ground as quickly as possible. It will upset the temper of the crowd if that process is impeded while the police search for liquor.
In most cases, the general run of spectators will be penalised by the Bill while those in the executive boxes will not, but in Ipswich the reverse will be the case. The

general body of spectators will not be penalised, because they will drink outside the perimeter of the ground, but that will not be wholly effective, because a fan can drink in one of the bars, duck under the open arch and join the body of the crowd, do the same again five minutes later and repeat the process any number of times. One can drink out of sight of the ground, but there will be no effective control, because fans can enter and leave almost at will.
It would be possible to adopt the course suggested by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) or that proposed by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). First, alcohol could be banned completely. Secondly, alcohol could continue to be sold. The third solution, the half-way house, is almost bound to fail. There would be too many anomalies. The Bill's provisions will not work in practice. Therefore, I am afraid that the legislation will have a limited impact.

Mr. David Ashby: It is sad that there has not been a general debate on this subject. A year ago I initiated a debate on sport, but although questions have been asked and statements made about football violence and hooliganism, we have not had a general debate on the subject. It would have been very helpful if such a debate had been held before the introduction of the Bill so that we could examine the wider aspects of the problem.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he did not know what caused football hooliganism and that therefore he could not provide a solution. It is no use criticising previous Ministers and previous Governments for nor having tackled the problem. It will continue for a long time, and there is no absolute solution to it. The Bill does not seek to provide a complete solution. It deals only with that part of the problem that is attributable to alcohol. To say that football violence is wholly attributable to alcohol is as bad as to say that it is attributable to unemployment. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.
I am convinced that the violence exists on two levels. I agree with every word in the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). He dealt fully with organised violence. About 200 followers of Tottenham Hotspur and about 200 followers of Millwall and Derby plan violence. Some, although not all clubs, have followers who get together on the Thursday or Friday before a match to plan how they will "take" the other end. It is territorial. They plan violence not only within football grounds but outside them. Various studies have been undertaken. One very interesting study was undertaken by Leicester university, which is working closely with the Home Office.
Those who meet before matches would not dream of drinking alcohol. They might have an orange juice in a public house, but to drink alcohol would mean that they were not quite so fit and able as they need to be to carry out planned violence. These people are not drunk when they look for their opponents. They recognise each other outside football grounds. They make certain signs to one another, and they dress in certain ways.
If one asked them, they would say, "We can't really say how we recognise each other; it is just that we do." Then they indulge in violence by attacking each other. It never crosses their minds that they are committing an offence. They think that it is wrong that they should be arrested and that their violence should be interfered with. They look


upon it more as a prize fight—as consenting youths or adults fighting one another. That is the main cause of violence in the streets and in football grounds.
These people are not to be found in the ranks of the unemployed or in the National Front. They are bright, intelligent and employed. I am not absolutely sure about this, but I believe that the leader of the Tottenham Hotspur group is a factory manager who is about 25. He can marshal his forces very well.
The second level of violence is dealt with in the Bill. The people who are drunk arrive at football matches and are used by those who are not drunk but who are violent. Because they are drunk they react in the wrong way. That leads to the next stage of secondary violence. It is that form of violence with which the Bill attempts to deal. Since these people are drunk, they are prone to violence and are easily aroused. They easily misunderstand the signals that are given by the major groups.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the Everton supporters who recently went to Holland. I met some of those supporters, and they said how happy a journey it was. Part of the happiness of that journey was attributable to the fact that they were able to drink vast quantities of alcohol and that they were drunk for most of the time. But it did not lead to violence. Reading between the lines, I think that, although they were making a nuisance of themselves, other people were prepared to let them be.
I wonder whether their journey to Holland would have been quite so happy if the police had not laughed at them but had arrested them when they were singing at two o'clock in the morning. That is the kind of borderline that drink creates and it is a problem that we have to examine. We cannot simply say that the Everton match in Holland was a happy event and that everything went well. Many of the people at that match were drunk for most of the time. It could easily have been an unhappy rather than a happy occasion.
I met some of the Liverpool supporters who had been in Brussels. They too said that, before the match, it had been a happy visit, but, again reading between the lines, it is clear that many of them had been in Brussels for three days and that for most of that time they had been in a drunken haze. They spoke about the atmosphere getting tense on the day before the match because of the attempt to segregate them, the interference and the attempt to impose some control which they did not like. When somebody is drunk, the borderline between violence and non-violence is very thin. That illustrates the need for the Bill.
The mounting violence during last season, culminating in the dreadful scenes in Brussels, led to the introduction of the Bill. We have rightly condemned what happened in Brussels, and rightly we as a country have to take responsibility for it. Both I and my hon. Friends have spoken strongly on the subject. It is unfortunate for the innocent that we have had to adopt such a stance. The Bill is another step along that road.
An analysis of what happened at Brussels — we are still waiting for the full report — will show that there was an element indulging in the organised violence to which I have referred. I have also spoken to people in Z, X and Y sections of the stadium who confirm that many people had drunk too much and went along with those who

organised the violence. The harrowing pictures of the Turin supporters when they returned and spoke of the English supporters saying, "Birra, birra, birra" —drink, drink, drink—shows the image of the British supporter abroad. It is of a drunken lout who does not go to see a football match, but sees the spectacle through an alcoholic haze. It is a sad image.
As we know, this is not the first time that there has been trouble. The right hon. Member for Gorton has referred to the events in Rome. I remember the events in Turin in 1981 when Juventus met a British team—which again. I think, was Liverpool. There were frightening episodes. They were not too bad in Turin, but along the whole of the Ligurian coast three or four coach loads of British supporters beat up the towns. They started in the town of Celle and moved on to Savona, where the youth of that town met them. The British supporters had been staying in hotels and had been drinking for three days, and most of their weapons were empty wine bottles. It is a sad reflection on British football that such things should happen.
There is a need for better policing. After the incidents at Brussels, why did we not have at least 300 policemen at the ports of entry to the United Kingdom waiting to take the names of those coming back from that football match? The police could have found out where the supporters had been standing or sitting, taken the names and addresses of the supporters and interviewed them later. They could have found out whether the supporters had anything relevant to say which they could have followed up later. The police could then have showed them photographs and asked whether they recognised the people on them. They could have produced a whole dossier of the case and presented it to the Belgians saying, "We can't help you more than this. We have now investigated the case. We have gone ahead with our investigation rather than ask you to come here. Now you can carry on with the proceedings from this evidence. We have given you all the assistance we can."
That is what we should have done; it was our duty to do it. However, we left it too late—we left it until the supporters had come back. It is only now that we are trying to identify people. We face the same problems every time. To convict, one needs evidence. We cannot say that we shall convict people generally or a group. Evidence must be found. We should have helped with the evidence immediately. It is getting more difficult to provide it now.
One of the great assets will be video recordings. At least we can then see offences being committed and identify the guilty person — with a good enough picture. Video recordings are a good deterrent. Detection is the deterrent that will succeed in the end. My experience of criminals is that it is fear of detection rather than the sentence which deters them.
The Bill is a good step and I support it, but we must go further. Its ambit might be too wide—I do not like the idea of designation of rugby and cricket grounds being open to the Secretary of State. There should be another Bill for each of those, and they should be debated separately.
Football has proved the need for designation. We are all satisfied of that, but we must all realise that the Bill is only a small step. We must be able to get the evidence of wrongdoing in grounds and outside them. Much of the violence occurs in areas surrounding grounds. Moreover, there is not a great deal of evidence to suggest that all the violence is done by drunk people.
Drunkenness is a difficult evidential point. The old offence of being drunk in a public place involves police officers standing in a witness box and saying that the defendant's eyes were glazed and his breath smelt of alcohol, so he was drunk. It is then argued that the defendant's eyes are usually glazed—a phenomenon that I detect in the Chamber now—and it is discovered that what was considered slurred speech is normal. I wonder whether it is possible to be a little more specific about drunkenness. We now have marvellous machines which must only be inflated by the suspect to give a measurement of blood alcohol levels, on the basis of which people can be deemed to be drunk. Evidentially, that would be far more acceptable.
I support the Bill as a step in the right direction.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), as he mentioned Everton football fans in Rotterdam. I am probably the only Everton fan in the House who was at the Feyenoord stadium for the European cup winners cup final.
I have followed soccer in the city of Liverpool for 35 years. I have watched matches at Everton and at Liverpool and seen those clubs play in other parts of the country. Although the Bill has the Opposition's support, it is a damp squib compared with the problem that it is supposed to tackle.
None of us wants to see drunkenness that leads to mindless violence, but in my experience of watching football in this country and abroad it does not seem to be the prime reason for our problems. Years ago people had drinks before football matches, they travelled to away matches, and they were not segregated in football grounds. The problems we now face are far more deep-seated than the Government are prepared to admit can be dealt with by the public order legislation which is promised in the autumn.
We cannot deal with this problem unless we get to grips with the society in which we live. One hon. Member talked about drunkenness in the Soviet Union, but apparently the drunkenness that Mr. Gorbachev has admitted exists in the Soviet Union does not lead to the type of mindless violence we see on our football terraces.

Mr. Ashby: Yes, it does.

Mr. Wareing: There has not been the same amount of evidence of that.
Nevertheless, I would strongly argue that we have to look at the fact that our society is based upon an economic system which is very much biased against the poor. There are large numbers of people whose horizons are and will continue to be limited until we have a better distribution of resources to enable all people to live in a classless, not class-ridden, society, with values which are reflected on our television screens.
The influence of television on violence has not been mentioned, although one hon. Member perhaps did mention that thugs like a theatre and like to see television cameras when they are acting. Much of our television viewing involves mindless violence, and it can be regarded as a transatlantic sewer letting out the worst type of pollution from across the Atlantic ocean. Nobody wants

tight censorship, but television could be an instrument for good in our society—something with which it cannot presently be charged.
Clubs on Merseyside and in other parts of the country, such as Norwich City, have been wrongly victimised as a result of events in Brussels. Having witnessed soccer on Merseyside closely over the years, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) stated, I know that Liverpool and Everton supporters can be together in the same football ground, whether at Anfield or Goodison park, see their team win or lose, and emerge from the ground as friends. There is no need for them to be segregated. At the Liverpool football ground the Anfield road end is for visiting supporters and the Spion Kop is for Liverpool supporters. Although an Everton supporter would prefer to be at the Anfield road end during a derby match, he can quite conveniently see the match in the Spion Kop without being attacked. Families on Merseyside are mixed in terms of soccer. As fans they are split between Liverpool and Everton. As one of my hon. Friends has already said, they travel to matches together. When Liverpool and Everton played in the Milk Cup at Wembley in 1984 there was no serious trouble. The people of Merseyside are no angels, and some of them get into trouble, but there was not serious trouble at the Milk Cup final or at the subsequent Charity Shield match at Wembley last year when Liverpool and Everton played.
In the six weeks prior to the tragedy in Brussels I travelled with the Everton football team to Munich and Rotterdam, and at the magnificent Olympia stadium in Munich there was no real segregation and no trouble. The fans of the Everton and Bayern Munich teams were wearing one another's favours. During the night in Munich I felt a little cold and wore a Bayern Munich cap. I can assure right hon. Members and hon. Members that they will not see me in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster wearing such a cap.
I do not know where the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West meets Liverpool and Everton supporters, but I can tell him that at Rotterdam the fans were boisterous. People cannot be expected to go to a football match and not be a little boisterous. If they were all public schoolboys, they would be described as high-spirited, but when working-class youngsters engage in boisterous behaviour it becomes hooliganism.
At the Feyenoord stadium, which is better than the one in Brussels, most spectators were seated, which is an additional advantage. It does not necessarily solve the problem, but it is advantageous to have an all-seating arrangement. The Feyenoord stadium might be used for another cup final in the future, but one complaint of mine is that fans are not allocated specific seats; they are allocated to a specific part of the stadium. I do not know whether that was the case in Brussels, but it could lead to problems. In Rotterdam there was no trouble at all. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West talked about people drinking overmuch, but I travelled on the train between Rotterdam and Amsterdam and saw no evidence of serious over-drinking among the overwhelming majority of fans.
Let us not forget that even though the fans were segregated inside the stadium — it is true there was segregation in Rotterdam with the supporters of Rapide Vienna at one end and Everton supporters at the other—when they emerged from the ground, whereas in Britain the police escort the away team's supporters back to the


railway station, there was nothing of that sort. The fans of Rapide Vienna and of Everton mingled quite pleasantly together. When travelling by taxi to the railway station in central Rotterdam, the taxi driver told me not to be surprised if the station was closed because previously there had been trouble from English fans. The Rotterdam central station was not closed on the night of the European cup winners cup final.
If there was danger in following sport on Merseyside, I would not subject my 10-year-old nephew to it, but for the past three years I have been taking him to see football matches at Goodison park and Anfield in perfect safety. Because I know that his safety will be assured, I shall continue to take him to watch football in the city of Liverpool. I would be apprehensive about other grounds in the country, but not those at Everton and Liverpool.
We are told that we must have this Bill because similar legislation has been successful in Scotland. I do not want to insult any of my hon. Friends from north of the border, but I argue that the case that alcohol creates hooliganism is not proven. The problem of hooliganism has not been solved north of the border. The problem of alcoholism may have been solved, but it is interesting to relate that the only reason why Everton was playing Rapide Vienna in Rotterdam was that the Austrian team had appealed against a result in an earlier round of the competition when it had been defeated by Glasgow Celtic. Rapide Vienna appealed, because members of its team had been attacked by supporters of Glasgow Celtic, and UEFA ordered that the match be replayed. It was replayed at Old Trafford, and on that occasion Rapide Vienna won. Even then, Rapide Vienna complained about players being attacked.
I am not suggesting that Glasgow Celtic should be banned from European competitions. It would be as wrong to ban a football team because of hooliganism that is inherent in society as it would be to close Liverpool Philharmonic hall or the Royal Festival hall because one or two people had been drunk and disorderly inside those concert halls.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend referred to supporters of Glasgow Celtic—a club that my wife has supported for many years. It would have been more accurate if he had referred to two supporters of Glasgow Celtic. There is no doubt in my mind— I support Greenock Morton—that there has been a dramatic diminution in football hooliganism north of the border. I accept what my hon. Friend says about the Bill not being the complete answer to the problem.

Mr. Wareing: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. I shall not stress the Glasgow Celtic connection in view of his dear lady's support for that team.
The term "supporters" has to be used carefully, because I understand that the majority of the people being interviewed by the Merseyside police are not from Merseyside. In Brussels there were many people with cockney accents who were wearing Liverpool scarves.
Not all that long ago, the Prime Minister ordered that the England-Scotland match should not be played at Wembley but should be transferred to Hampden park. Was that to keep the sober Scots away from Londoners or to prevent the drunken Londoners going to Hampden park? That was a ridiculous decision.
There is an element here that should be considered seriously, but we are in danger of sweeping it under the carpet. Some hon. Members have already mentioned the Fascist connection. In Liverpool, the National Front and Fascism have very little support. They rarely put up candidates for election. When they do, those candidates fail abysmally against the traditional parties. Ministers should consider seriously the statement of John Smith, the chairman of Liverpool football club, that he was confronted by supporters of extreme Right-wing organisations.
We have heard that the National Front was recruiting members on board the ferries to Belgium. The Tribune of Friday 24 May — only five days before the Brussels disaster—pointed out that Italian Fascists were in this country meeting with extreme Right-wing British Fascists and obviously plotting to do us no good. We have had evidence about Oxford United National Front supporters going to Blackburn Rovers and being photographed with a Union Jack with a swastika in the middle—an insult to our national flag.
To ignore the Fascist element is to trample on the graves of the millions who fought against Fascism 40 years ago. There has been evidence of the Chelsea National Front being in Istanbul. How do these people get the money to travel such distances? We should find out who is at the back of the Fascist organisations with the coffers out of which fans can get money to go to Mexico and Finland to create disturbances. Italian Fascists were very much in evidence in the Heysel stadium. Indeed, the insignia of the Ordine Nuovo, the extreme Right-wing Fascist organisation in Italy, was emblazoned on one of the Italian flags on display that night.
All right, let us pass the Bill. I shall certainly support it and give any support necessary to any Government who are striving to get at the wrongdoers. If the wrongdoers are drunks, the Government will have the support of all the people on Merseyside in dealing with them.
The Government should not stop there. They should investigate some of the criminals who are in this country now, such as Clemente Graziani, one of the founders of the Italian Fascist new order, and Roberto Fiore, an interesting case, who is residing in a flat in the same apartment block as the Secretary of State for Transport. Perhaps that should be investigated. Let us find out what these people are doing. I understand that one or two of them are wanted by the Italian authorities in connection with their investigation of the Bologna railway station bombing.
In regard to our home-grown variety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has referred to the dreadful publication Bulldog with its league of louts. That should be considered. We must get at the instigators of violence; we should not depend only on getting at those who are dragged behind because of alcohol and the herd instinct. I ask the Government not to regard our support as easy support for the Bill. More than this is needed. The Government should investigate the people, whether they be rich or poor, who are behind the Fascist movement which is instigating trouble in football. They should not expect to solve the problem by this mouse of a Bill.

9 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Unlike many other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and in


particular unlike the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I do not have any football anecdotes to relate. I have to confess that my knowledge of football is limited, and that my interest is even less, but I do have an interest in legislation, and I fear that this legislation is in some respects unsatisfactory. It is clear that in bringing forward the Bill the Government are very properly reacting to a sense of horror and concern throughout the country. I am sure that the Government are right to identify alcohol as a significant, if not a substantial, cause of some of the violence and hooliganism that has taken place.
My criticism is not of the main objective of the Bill, but rather of the means that have been adopted to achieve that main objective. The Bill goes too far, in that the powers that it confers upon the Secretary of State are unnecessarily wide. It is perhaps desirable that one should understand exactly the scheme contained in the Bill, because it is extremely wide-ranging. The Bill gives the Secretary of State virtually unfettered powers to designate sporting grounds and sporting events as being grounds and events to which the provisions of the Bill shall apply. I say virtually unfettered powers because the power is subject only to the negative procedure.
As the House will know, the negative procedure is an extremely unsatisfactory way of controlling secondary legislation, because under the negative procedure the House can only either accept or reject the proposals contained in the statutory instrument. It cannot amend a statutory instrument and therefore the negative procedure is an extremely blunt weapon for dealing with delegated secondary legislation.
As I said, the Bill gives the Secretary of State virtually unfettered power. It will enable him to apply the provisions of the Bill to, say, cricket, tennis, rowing, athletics, boxing or any other sport. That is the power that we are giving to the Secretary of State.
We ought also to realise that the restrictions in the Bill are far-reaching, and are essentially three in number. The first restriction is on the right to possess intoxicating liquor in the designated sporting ground. It may well be that in the context of football that is a perfectly acceptable restriction, because the event is of fairly short duration, but I question whether it would be acceptable if the Bill were to be extended, as it can be, to cricket, to tennis, to Henley or to any other sporting event where alcohol is commonly consumed. We have to contemplate that happening, because the Bill enables it to happen.
The second point about these restrictions is that the Bill prohibits the possession on a sporting ground of what is called a controlled container. Within the meaning of the Bill, a controlled container is any container capable of containing liquid and capable of causing an injury. The truth is that any container capable of containing liquid is capable of causing an injury if thrown, and therefore all containers are controlled. We know that bottles of beer are obviously controlled containers, but so for that matter is a hip flask or a Thermos flask, or a can of Coca-Cola or even one's wife's scent bottle.
Those are all controlled containers and one has to ask whether it is right to prohibit people from carrying these things to a designated ground. In the context of football the answer might well be, "Yes, it is, because it is an event of fairly short duration," but if one were to raise that question in the context of cricket. would it be reasonable to stop somebody taking a Thermos flask or a carton of milk to a cricket match, which, after all, goes on the whole

day, no doubt in hot weather? When one begins to test the Bill, one comes to the conclusion that perhaps it goes a little too far.
The third restriction is on the right to sell alcohol within the designated ground. I shall not cover the points made by many other hon. Members, save to say that it is clear that this prohibition can impose quite substantial financial hardship. Again, that may be necessary in the context of a football match, but I question whether it is acceptable in the context of the other activities to which the Bill can be applied.
I believe that the Bill goes further than it should. We have the problem of violence at football grounds. Clearly we must tackle it, but we must be careful not to use a method which carries it too far.
I can see that it is convenient for the Secretary of State to have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to any sporting event which may cause trouble. I can see that it may be convenient to the House not to have to consider primary legislation in the future if, for example, we have trouble at boxing matches. Although these arguments are of considerable pragmatic worth, I question whether we should be doing that.
In essence, we are giving the Secretary of State power to enlarge the ambit of the criminal law. We are giving him power to impose penalties, sanctions and prohibitions where presently there are none. I do not like that being done by delegated secondary legislation. We should have the courage to apply the Bill to what the House wants to apply it to, and that means defining the grounds or the events in the Bill. If that cannot be done, let us try to formulate some restrictions or limits on the power of the Secretary of State to enlarge the scope of the activities covered. Do not let us extend the criminal law by way of delegated legislation. I find that offensive in principle, and for that reason I find the Bill unsatisfactory.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am sure the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) will understand if I do not take up the many detailed matters that he raised. I agree strongly with the central principle of his speech —that we should not delegate too much legislation in the way that the Bill does.
The city of Leeds has unfortunately been associated for many years with the problem of football hooliganism and football violence, and it is important to put on record the efforts that have been made by Leeds United to overcome the problems. For some years, the club's directors have taken steps to improve the record of the club. Talking to local residents and the police locally, it becomes apparent that at Leeds United home matches there has been a significant improvement in crowd behaviour. It has been achieved at a cost to the club in making ground improvements and in the number of police that have to be used for crowd control. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that it has been at a cost to away supporters, who come to Leeds station and are escorted to the ground by the police. But there is a sensible reason for that. If it was not done, people living around Elland road would pay a heavy price.
All that has been done, and it has improved the record at the Elland road ground. Unfortunately, the club has a very bad record away from home. During last season, we had trouble at Huddersfield, Barnsley, and in the last match of the season at Birmingham.
I make three brief points about the Birmingham game. The first is that the game was played in a dry ground. The Government's proposed legislation would have no effect on what occurred there.
Secondly, I invite hon. Members to consider the number of arrests made and the addresses of those arrested. Very few of them came from the city of Leeds and very few of them from west Yorkshire. Unfortunately, in common with a handful of other clubs, Leeds United attracts an element of support from many parts of the country, and that is clear from the addresses of those who were arrested at the Birmingham game.
Thirdly, the game at Birmingham could not have been an all-ticket match. It became important only five days before it took place, because the club was in with a chance of promotion from the second division. Nobody expected that. It came about because of certain results in the football league second division, which meant that the game attracted additional importance. Therefore, we cannot simply stipulate that all games should be all-ticket matches because at one stage they may not be important and later they may assume importance.
We should not forget what clubs have tried to do, and the wider context of the problem. Leeds United and other clubs attract some supporters who look for trouble. It is difficult for both the club and the police to control them. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to supporters who seem to make it their business to plan trouble at away matches. Elland road has attracted what is called the service crew, which goes to away matches, not on public transport and special coaches, but in minivans. They arrive early, drink in pubs in the city, and often stand with the home supporters and cause trouble. The Government should take such groups seriously, because evidence suggests that there may well be Right-wing extremists infiltrating them. The service crew is a typical example of the problem groups that some clubs must face.
The Bill is not of tremendous importance, but we shall support it. The problem of alcoholism does not take place in the grounds. The Bill would have been more satisfactory if it had taken into account the many supporters who travel by minibuses and buy beer from supermarkets, because they form one element which arrives at the ground drunk and causes trouble. The Bill does not and cannot deal with the problem of pubs around the ground. Perhaps the police need to use their power to close those pubs to ensure a dry area near the ground. In those respects the Bill is unsatisfactory.
If the Bill is the Government's response to football hooliganism, it is unsatisfactory. Much more money should be made available to buy the video equipment that is necessary to detect those who commit offences on the terraces. At the Huddersfield-Leeds United game the video equipment was so effective that the police officer who manned it has been attacked by hooligans. The Government should make money available to the clubs for that equipment, to improve the quality of the grounds, to make the grounds easier to police, and to bring the grounds into the community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) said, it is sad that in the golden days of British football money was not used effectively to bring football into the community. In many respects football was divorced from the community. I hope that the Government will make money available to extend the facilities at

football grounds to a wider section of the community so that they are used more extensively, not only on match days but every day.
I hope that the Bill is merely the start of the Government's reaction, that they see the deep-seated problems of football hooliganism, and that we shall be able to continue this debate on other occasions and get to the nub of the problem, which besmirches the name of British football.

Mr. Robert Hicks: In view of recent events, no one would wish to minimise the problems associated with crowd control, violence and hooliganism at football matches. For that reason, I support the intentions behind the various provisions in the Bill. However, I am worried about many specific aspects.
The Government have acted speedily and resolutely in response to a worrying sequence of events that in certain cases has involved violence and even fatalities that no civilised society could tolerate. Although the need for this emergency legislation is not in dispute, it does not alter the fact that Parliament must try to get the details right, and that aspect worries me.
Certain facets of the proposed legislation demonstrate a lack of understanding of the structure of professional football in Britain. As a consequence, some of the objectives of better and more effective crowd control, to which we all subscribe, could be jeopardised if the Bill were passed in its present form.
Then there are the wider implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) explained the consequences of accepting the Bill as drafted, with the wide enabling powers which it would give to the Secretary of State. It is clear that conditions that apply at football grounds, in response to which the Bill has been produced, may be entirely different from those relating to cricket, rugby or any other sporting activity.
I shall illustrate my concern in two ways, one in general terms and one in particular. In general terms, it is important to remember that football is our national sport. It is watched on average by 500,000 spectators every Saturday. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) said that because over the years the numbers watching had declined, in consequence the number of clubs should be reduced.
In addition to those who watch, many millions more are involved, be they watching football on television, following their own teams—from Everton at the top of the first division to Torquay at the bottom of the fourth —doing the pools or whatever. In other words, the very structure of our football league system is important to perhaps 20 to 25 per cent. of the population. That is why the Government must be careful before introducing legislation that could harm the fabric of our national game.
In relation to the particular, I refer to the proposed changes in clause 3 regarding
the sale and supply of alcohol at licensed or registered club premises situated in a designated sports ground for the period of any designated sporting event.
Many larger clubs derive considerable revenue from executive boxes. At Tottenham Hotspur, as hon. Members have pointed out, the 72 boxes, costing on average £10,000 each, provide a revenue, before any drinks or food are sold, of £750,000. That income is reinvested in


ground improvements, which in turn provide greater crowd safety, which in turn ensures that the level of attendance is maintained.
That is vital not only as income to larger clubs but because of the spin-off by way of the attraction of sponsorship, the football pools and the 4 per cent. pool contribution. All those factors have an impact on the smaller clubs. My local football team, Plymouth Argyle, last year received £48,000 from such sources.
I hope that the Minister will consider the question of the serving of alcohol in executive boxes which overlook the grounds. The amendment suggesting that alcohol should be served up to half an hour before a game and thirty minutes after the conclusion of the game is a sensible one. I hope that the Minister can say that he is prepared to respond to this positively. This income is significant for football clubs and thus for the structure of professional football. Plymouth Argyle was contemplating the building of eight executive boxes this summer. Unless the Bill is modified, Plymouth is highly unlikely to go ahead with the scheme. Therefore, potential revenue to the game will be lost.
I believe that the problem of alcohol is associated with the consumption and purchase of drink before the game. I support the provisions for tackling the problem, but I hope that we will not allow over expectation to develop.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), I agree that there is an increasing tendency in the country to respond to the activities of a small minority, thereby preventing the great majority of the public going about their lawful interests such as enjoying their recreation and leisure pursuits. While this applies to football grounds and alcohol, it is also a much wider problem. If we are not conscious of the danger of responding too quickly to a range of situations, we will prevent the great majority of people from doing anything at all.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The Government, in aiming to solve the problem of football violence and hooliganism, would have done better to start with a leaflet which I sent to the Home Secretary over two years ago. In the leaflet, which was handed out at Newcastle United football ground, the National Front claimed that Newcastle was only second in the National Front football league, but said that it was going to Chelsea the following Saturday to prove that it was the champion.
The Government are trying to tackle the problem by means of minor and relatively unimportant legislation. I would have preferred them to strengthen police powers and instruct chief constables to act as speedily as possible in removing people who shout Fascist and racist slogans at football matches.
Secondly, we are tending to punish the innocent, and, as someone who supports a small club—Hartlepool—I am particularly sorry about that. I am proud of the club in Hartlepool, despite the reaction of some Conservative Members. I feel strongly about Norwich City, a small club which has done exceptionally well. I say this openheartedly, because Norwich City beat Sunderland, the area which I represent in Parliament and the team which I follow weekly. I mixed with the crowds at that game and sat among Norwich supporters, and not one iota of trouble occurred at the ground or when the crowd left the ground. While they were on the tube train, the Norwich

supporters were sympathising with the Sunderland supporters because their team had played particularly badly that day and pointing out how that had happened to them on a previous occasion. Adopting the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton),I feel that to punish the innocent in this way should be no part of the Government's objective.

Mr. John Powley: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the club in my constituency, Norwich City. I agree wholeheartedly about the good behaviour of both the Norwich City and Sunderland supporters during the Milk Cup final. Supporters can be well behaved and can get along together, provided that the right set of circumstances prevail. That has been shown by those two sets of supporters.

Mr. Boyes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
I abhor violence wherever it occurs, but especially at grounds which play such an important part in my life. I have no vested interest in the Bill, because never, under any circumstances, do I drink alcohol. I abhor drunkenness, whether in this House or at football matches. The police should have power to remove people from grounds if they are in an intoxicated state and are causing problems.
In addition to our concern about the activities of Right-wing groups, the clubs have a responsibility to segregate the crowds. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has already made that point. I attended the Chelsea-Sunderland match last season, when rioting began in the stands. I was hurt when I was trapped by rioting fans. Therefore, I address my remarks not only to the House but to the football clubs, which have a duty to ensure that visiting supporters are not allowed free access to the stands when they can mix with home supporters. I believe that almost 3,000 games of football were played last season, but only eight incidents were referred to the football League because of violence or a similar problem.
Sunderland football club has private boxes, from which it gains £60,000 a year. There has never been an incident in any of the boxes. One hon. Member said that we do not want to create different classes at matches by banning drinking in one area but allowing it in another. Jack Dunnett, president of the football league has put forward three proposals. He suggests that licensing justices should have discretion under clause 3(2) to license any part of the ground, on the basis that justices can take into account local conditions, a club's previous record and the type of spectator to be found in a particular part of the ground. In other words, if a ground can satisfactorily demonstrate to magistrates that it is trouble free, the magistrate should allow it to sell alcohol in approved areas. To take revenue from a club such as Sunderland, which with other sponsorship grants could amount to £200,000, would leave the club with some difficulty.
The general manager of Sunderland has told me that after every game he and his colleagues hold a meeting with senior police officers to review the game, to determine whether there have been any problems and to decide how the ground can be made more efficient and effective. When I say problems, I am talking about assisting the police.
Football needs additional cash. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) suggested a


video system. It would cost Sunderland £50,000 to instal a suitable video system to monitor the problems. Football urgently needs cash—first for safety at the ground, and secondly to assist with control. Therefore, as I have said before on other occasions, the Government should pay up; they should pay their bit. They should make money available to football clubs so that they can improve the grounds in the way that is needed.
The pools should give more money from the profits that they make. The pools get a good deal from football. They should put more cash into the game. There will be an amendment to the Finance Bill calling for a reduction in pools tax, which has been mentioned.
Football is a great game. All of us who have spoken have great affection for it. We think that it is an essential part of our lives. We want to see the game cleaned up, but let us tackle the problem where it occurs, and not just take a big sledgehammer to crack a nut by tackling the problem as if every club and every spectator behaved in the same way as a few idiots do occasionally on a Saturday.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on bringing forward this excellent Bill. I should like to say, I believe on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, that it is very welcome.
I was always keen on controlling hooliganism, in another interest that I had. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) also mentioned this matter. We must have strong deterrents to stop football hooligans once and for all. Unfortunately, being a football hooligan is nothing new, but it is something new for the Government to introduce a Bill on this important subject. That is what is to be welcomed.
I am a supporter of Leicester City football club, which is in the first division and is a well-behaved group. It always does well. It is a credit to the other football clubs in the area. I went to see the club play Tottenham Hotspur immediately after the troubles. I was impressed with what I saw. Unfortunately, Leicester did not win, but I saw no trouble. The police were not, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) described them, hounding or herding football supporters. I went to the railway station to see Spurs fans being escorted to the football club at Filbert street. There was no trouble. The fans were led in a snake, but it was an orderly snake. The police got on well with the football supporters on both sides.
The morning before the police went to meet the football fans, there was a police briefing at Charles street police station, where I watched the police working out where there might be trouble. We were certain that if there were any trouble, the police would be there to prevent it. They did prevent it. There was no question of anyone being charged with an alcohol offence after or during the game. The directors on both sides supported the decisions taken by the referee. There was no difficulty whatsoever.
The idea of video cameras for crowd surveillance, suggested by Opposition Members, is a very good one, and has been tried out successfully in Leicester. It is only right that we should emulate the Scottish Football Association. The ban on alcohol being taken into the

ground, introduced in Scotland in 1980, was correct. It made sense. If we follow the Scottish dimension for a change, I see nothing wrong in that.
I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend about the banning of alcohol, and also to the Prime Minister. Several other hon. Members naturally did the same. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about increasing football violence. In my letter, I referred to the provision of identification cards. I should like to see a photo on those cards. I referred to the banning of alcohol in or around football grounds, stiffer sentences for hooliganism, publicity in local and national newspapers of all those who have been convicted for any offence of hooliganism, and the full policing of football matches, but remembering always that the police are invited into the football ground. They do not have an automatic right of entry.
I am a co-sponsor, with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), of the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages from Garage Premises Bill. If garage chains such as BP allow alcohol to be sold in garage forecourt shops, that will be a temptation for the travelling football fans to get tanked up even before they arrive at the football ground. This is a matter of concern, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will be answering on that point.
We must never let fans go into the ground in a drunken stupor. I know that the police will be outside keeping an eye on those entering football grounds. I feel certain that they will be able effectively to stop the sale of alcohol and will stop fans coming in carrying alcohol. However, I am not certain whether they can always stop the drunkards coming in. I hope so. I know that they will be able to search for alcohol and I know that they will he able to stop what are known, and have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), as football travelling nasties from going in.
I want membership cards introduced. I am upset that Ted Croker, the FA secretary, seems to be against the use of identification cards. He feels that they are too expensive and will be difficult to administer, but if they can stop football hooligans once and for all, it must be worth using them.
The deterrent aspects of the Bill are welcome. The £400 fine and the three months' imprisonment make a lot of sense. We must publish the names of those convicted of offences of drunkenness, hooliganism and bringing the game into disrepute. We say that about some of the football players, but we never seem to say it about the hooligans, and the football players are taken advantage of. Too often, the football hooligans get away with it because they are in the crowd and get excited, and they do not think that they will be noticed because they are in the crowd. We must move as fast as we can on this problem. The police will be helping in this. I do not want to see the police used as a weapon to beat the hooligan. The law is here to beat the hooligan and I want to see the law used to keep the peace.
I appreciate that our young people want and love their football. The greatest punishment would be to deprive them of full acceptance and admission into football grounds. Publishing their names in the club programme and building it up into a cumulative list would be a great embarrassment to them. It would deprive them of their


membership, and I do not think that they would be treated as heroes. In the end, they would be treated as of ill repute and as a discredit to the game.
In 1978, Leicester city council published a study paper, "Behaviour of Persons Attending Football Matches". It identified many of the points, particularly those concerning excessive alcohol, that have come to light today. It is frightening that that report was published in 1978 and it is now 1985, but at long last we are doing something. I want to see football clubs co-operating fully. Whether people are fellow supporters, players, directors or the gatemen, all can help in cutting out the cancer of football hooliganism. They can be certain that they will be assisted in bringing these miscreants to book once and for all.
Our football players have not always been the best behaved. Sometimes, when they have misbehaved or there has been a punch-up or something like that, football fans have wanted to emulate that example. This must be stopped. I know that I am speaking of the very few football players who abuse the system, but I urge them to take care because the public are watching them at all times.
It is marvellous that the Government have introduced these proposals, but it is incredible that it is not the Football Association and the football clubs that are bringing forward proposals. The Government have had to give the lead. That is a credit to them, but it is worrying that once again the football clubs are copping out. They are always the weak ones, and we have to introduce legislation. I hope that this legislation will pass tonight.
The behaviour of those so-called fans in Brussels was a discredit to the whole country. It brought shame to people no matter where they lived or what views they held. Those scenes must never be forgotten. They must serve as a constant reminder to those who might try to forget them that such behaviour by football hooligans abroad must never be allowed to happen again. The deterrent aspect of showing those scenes will always help.
Political commentators have criticised the Bill because they say that the provisions are far too sweeping. I see nothing wrong with that. I am pleased that someone who allows alcohol to be carried on a vehicle may be fined up to £1,000.
As I said in an intervention during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, Leicester City football club is worried about clause 3(3), because people will no longer be allowed to consume alcohol in the executive boxes. The boxes are screened from the pitch but they overlook it. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, that is where football clubs make money. For example, Tottenham earns £750,000 from them in one year. That money is needed for the game. That is why Leicester City has an excellent, well-protected ground. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said.
I am sure that the magistrates courts will help clubs such as Leicester City, which apply for exemption orders, and I am sure that Leicester City's application will be granted.
The police will have new powers to stop and search coaches—

Dr. Godman: Are the so-called spectators who frequent those boxes there for the football or for the drink?

Mr. Bruinvels: The people who frequent the boxes are supporters and the sponsors of matches. They regularly give money to the game. The hon. Gentleman implied that they should be watching the game instead of drinking. That is their decision. I prefer to watch the game. However, we must not forget that they give much-needed money to the game.
The question which I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a long time ago about the police powers of stop and search has been clearly answered. I am sure that the Bill will reassure those who worry about offensive weapons being taken into grounds. The Bill will also cover empty containers, which can become missiles.
It is obvious why many people stay away from football games. Many games are shown on television, and there is no need to go. It is no longer a family game because of the violence and the fact that the wrong elements attend matches. The Bill will help to bring back a great British tradition. Football is a decent game. It is a group sport which encourages a team spirit. The Government have shown their team spirit by presenting the Bill. It will bring peace to our pitches and encourage people to return to football grounds. With family stands and good policing, I have no doubt that football will once again become a great sport for spectators to enjoy.

Mr. Denis Howell: This has been an extraordinary debate. In accordance with our procedures, and following precedent today, I have some interests to declare. First, I am a director of Wembley stadium, which I understand from the Home Secretary will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), there are two first division football teams in my constituency—Aston Villa and Birmingham City—both of which are extremely well conducted, and both of which depend heavily on sponsorship income, especially income from sponsors' boxes. They would find it difficult, if not impossible, to divide those boxes into drinking areas and watching areas. That is at the heart of our difficulty.
The House is giving the Government the generous facility of trying to take all the stages of a Bill in one day. It is acknowledged that both sides of the House support the procedure, but my experience in the House tells me that, whenever we have done so, we have never quite got the legislation right. It is a hazardous process.
I emphasise the point that the Bill will provide a permanent restriction on football clubs. We are not restricting any other sport. Therefore, it behoves us to get it right tonight if we can. We have a duty to examine all comments by football authorities and hon. Members who have an interest in the subject:. I have agreed with every word of the speeches by at least six hon. Members from both sides of the House tonight. We are not criticising what the Government are trying to do, but expressing our concern.
The Government are entitled to say that there is all party support for the measure, but that does not mean that they should treat the House with disdain by refusing to take on board any of the problems which have surfaced during the debate or which have been brought to our attention by the football authorities. If the Home Secretary and the House are convinced by the arguments, somewhere,


somehow, between now and when the Bill is considered by another place, more thought must be given to the problems.
That takes me to the heart of what I think are the difficulties in connection with the Bill. How do we deal in equity with the consumption of alcohol within the grounds? I regret that the Minister with responsibility for sport is not to take part in today's debate, but I understand that not everybody can speak. However, that means that the Government are approaching the legislation from a Home Office stance, when it should be considered in a football setting, because it deals with the problems which affect football. The Department of the Environment working party report, which was published a few months ago, stated:
The police report little evidence of drunkenness among those arrested at football matches and believe alcohol is not the major factor in soccer violence in England and Wales.
We must be careful if, at one stroke, we plan to throw out of the window the findings of a working party based upon police advice.
The principle of collective guilt seems now to be universally applicable to all who have anything to do with football. We must condemn such nonsense. I have never believed in collective guilt in connection with a nation or a sport. I do not believe in the collective guilt of football supporters. I believe that 99 per cent. of all men and women who watch football in Britain are decent, ordinary, upstanding people who want nothing to do with violence or drunkenness. They should not be penalised unless it is absolutely essential and unless we can prove that by penalising them we can eradicate the so-called cancer. I do not believe that the case is proven.
I accept that the Bill provides one way of achieving equity between the person who sits in a box and drinks wine with a three or four-course meal and the man on the terraces who wants half a pint with his pork pie. The Government must deal equitably with both, or they will be building up trouble for the future. The Government say that they will deal with that problem and achieve equity by not allowing people to drink in a private box, but allowing them to drink in the directors' room or in the supporters' club round the corner.
What will be the consequence to football if the Government deal with the problem in that way? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary must not keep on grumbling. I am aware that the Opposition are in agreement with the Government on the principle of the Bill, and the Opposition have already made a strong case for equity, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman should listen when hon. Members prove that his proposal is not the best way to achieve equity. If he does not listen to what is said in the House, he is treating the House with contempt.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: No, he is not.

Mr. Howells: Of course he is. Only the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) could possibly think that if a Minister does not listen to the House he is not in contempt. That is why the hon. Gentleman makes such nonsensical remarks. [Interruption.] It seems that hooligans are not confined to the terraces of football grounds.
I want to carry the Home Secretary with me on this. I do not expect him to agree tonight to change the Bill. At least six or eight hon. Members have drawn attention to this aspect, and the Home Secretary and the Minister of State should look at it. If there is a problem, it should be examined and considered. When football clubs tell us that they will be seriously affected by these measures, we must consider their case. When the earlier discussions took place between both sides of the House, no figures were available. Since then, the football league has revealed that £4 million is at risk from the closure or threatened closure of sponsors' boxes.
Is there not another way to achieve the sense of equity which both the Government and the Opposition want in dealing with drink at football grounds? There is indeed another way and it is to be found in amendment No. 22 which would bring licensing hours into football grounds. For example, no drinking would be allowed in any part of the ground between 30 minutes before the match starts and 30 minutes after it ends.
The amendment would deal with the problem in a practical way, because most people these days do not come to football matches more than 20 minutes before the kick-off, as we have heard in some graphic accounts today. We would deal with the problem realistically, on the basis of equity, without discriminating against the man in the private box or the man on the terrace and football would not be deprived of £4 million. That is the intelligent way to deal with the problem. I do not expect the Home Secretary to jump up and accept that proposal now, but I ask him to consider it, as the Opposition will.
There is another deficiency in the Bill, which I would describe as the European dimension. There is no provision in the Bill to cover drink on boats or planes. That means that there are no provisions relevant to the problems of Europe or the situation that occurred in Brussels. Everybody knows what the problem is. People get tanked up on the boats, but the captain refuses to close the bar — I have had experience of this problem, and I sympathise with Ministers who also have to deal with it — because he says that it will deprive genuine passengers of a drink. Many of these boats were previously British Rail owned. The fans then arrive on the continent far too early and drink all day before the match starts. They drink cheap wine, which they are not used to drinking.
There is no reference in the Bill, and there was none in the Home Secretary's speech, to alcohol on passenger trains. We have been told that special measures will be introduced for special trains, but most of the thugs do not travel on special trains. They create mayhem on ordinary passenger trains. Nor does the Bill refer to off-licence premises and supermarkets. The hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) drew attention to this fact.
There is no panacea which will solve the problem, yet we are in danger of suggesting that there are three panaceas which will solve it. None of them will work. I have dealt with the first panacea — the prohibition of alcohol inside football grounds.
The second panacea is the introduction of identity cards. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) graphically illustrated the problems which turnstile operators would face if they had to look at photographs on identity cards and refuse admission to somebody when 20,000 people were trying to get into a football ground during the last quarter of an hour before


a match began. It would be impossible for those refused entry to get out, and in any case most of the thugs would refuse to accept such a refusal of admission.
I speak from experience. My brother is a turnstile operator. A fan was set upon last season and seriously injured outside his turnstile. My brother left his turnstile and went to help him, whereupon he was hit on the head with a brick and suffered a serious injury, which required the attention of at least three police officers to stop the bleeding. He was taken to hospital and his turnstile was left unattended, together with the money that he had taken. We must not add to the problems already faced by turnstile operators that of trying to identify every person who goes through their turnstiles. The football league has asked the football trust to conduct an investigation, but I do not believe that identity cards will work. They are not a panacea.
Yet another panacea has not been mentioned so far in the debate — the segregation of football supporters. Segregation is very important, but it is an admission of failure. The clays when a man and his neighbour could go to a football match, support different teams and enjoy themselves in a civilised way are over. Segregation may be vital during this emergency, but it should not be regarded as a permanent solution to the problem.
We must not pretend that the Bill will deal with the social evils in our society. It comes nowhere near to achieving that aim. There is violence at football matches, on the beaches, at pop concerts and in city centres. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tried to quantify that violence in his last report. He said that violence was growing at about 7 per cent. per annum, and I believe that he is right. So this measure, or any other measure which does not seek to deal with the underlying causes of violence in our society, will be irrelevant to the real problems with which we have to deal.
On behalf of the Opposition, I went to see Mr. Justice Popplewell to ask him how he proposed to conduct an investigation into the National Front and the evils of extremism, which are battening on to football for their own evil purposes, and was much concerned when he replied, "Mr. Howell, I am an inquiry and not an investigation. I do not have the resources to conduct an investigation." Although the Opposition favour his inquiry into the fire at Bradford and the events at Birmingham City, we—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Howell: — are concerned that Mr. Justice Popplewell does not have the resources to conduct the wider inquiry that we think is necessary.
Hon. Members have considered how we should deal with our trouble makers abroad. In the report to which I have referred the Government say that we must consider "consular confidentiality". The names of people who disgrace our country abroad cannot be made available to anybody, including the Football Association, who wants to deal with the problem. We must change our approach to civil liberties and to the availability of passports to known trouble makers.
The absurdity was never better illustrated than by the Minister with responsibility for sport asking the Mexican Government please to ensure that they do not admit, at the

next World Cup, trouble makers from Britain. Thai is a ludicrous procedure. We are telling the Mexican Government that we cannot stop hooligans from leaving Britain, so will they please stop them from entering Mexico.
The Opposition will support the Bill, especially the proposals for banning people going into grounds with alcohol or when they are the worse for wear. We shall also give all our help on the proposals concerning drink when travelling. The Bill will have a marginal effect on the problem in football grounds. We hope that it will he to the good — I have expressed my reservations.
A football board with substantial funds, or some other means of producing money, must be established if we are to turn football into family entertainment once again. Grounds must be made more profitable, and there must be all-seating stadiums, which will help to identify trouble makers. Indeed, amenities generally must be improved.
The House should ponder the fact that duty on football pools is 42·5 per cent. whereas it is 7·5 per cent. on off-course betting, 4 per cent. on racing on track and about 6 per cent. on bingo. It is absurd that, before the man enters the competition, when he sits down to fill in a football pool form, he has paid 42·5p out of his £1 to the Chancellor when his wife pays only 6p or 8p when she goes to play bingo.
The Chester committee, which I set up in the 1960s, recommended a football levy such as we have for horse racing. The Royal Commission said the same. I am not making a party political point, because we did not act on the Chester report, any more than the Government have. My point is that the time has come to produce some money. If we remove or put at risk the £4 million from clubs, we must provide a substitute.
The House must find an answer to the problem. We shall support the Bill because it goes some way towards dealing with violence, but I have grave doubts, which have been reinforced by speeches from both sides of the House. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would agree to examine the new arguments that have emerged during the debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House has had a fairly full, frank and fair debate on problems which relate not just to the legislation we are currently considering but to the problems within football both here and abroad. My hon. Friends and Opposition Members have the judicious benefit of hindsight about events which gave rise to the problems faced by the Government in recent months. Such events were cumulative. It was not just the enormous tragedy in the Heysel stadium at the end of May, but a season of ghastly tragedies: such as the fire at Bradford; some of a direct hooligan nature, like the Millwall-Luton game; some like the Birmingham tragedy; and, on top of that, the tragedy in Brussels. The House recognises that any Government would have to take a view whether to do something or nothing. The general mood on the morrow of the Brussels tragedy was that the good name of English football was at an internationally low level and that the good name of the British had been badly affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) remarked that football is crucially important because it is a national game, but that we should not harm the fabric of that national game. The events of the last


season have undoubtedly harmed the fabric of the national game and we are discussing legislation which none of us would wish to do in the circumstances in which it is brought before the House. I appreciate the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have generally welcomed the fact that there is legislation to deal with this element. I accept that this is but one element — and probably a small element — of the total problem with which we have to grapple. On that issue, I stress to the House that the prime arbiters of what goes on within football must be the football authorities.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), with his long experience and knowledge of these matters, will recognise that the issues have been on the table for discussion with football authorities year after year. Discussion on the problems of violence on the terraces, hooliganism, vandalism, crowd control, police activity, courts and sentences have occurred cumulatively almost year after year. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the Chester report, but who chucked it out? I understand that it was the Football League. The football authorities would have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister needs to be careful. The football authority is very much in favour of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which is the point that I made.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that that was not the only element involved, but so be it. If there is self-policing, if there is self-help within football, that is all to the good.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who spoke first for the Opposition, was concerned not so much with this piece of legislation as with criticising the Government for failing to act on the broader issues. It seemed that he was suggesting that there has been inadequate action. He was critical because we have not done anything except to produce this Bill — [Interruption.] That was the inference from the argument that he was seeking to deploy.
I remind the House of the events that have occurred since the close of the football season. First, my right hon. and learned Friend, under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, is designating the third and fourth divisions of the Football League.
Secondly, the Popplewell inquiry was set up. Hon. Members will know that that inquiry can take evidence in relation to the Brussels tragedy, as well as the tragedies at Birmingham and Bradford, and that there is likely to be an interim report available to my right hon. and learned Friend, hopefully, before the start of the new football season.
Thirdly, there will be a major effort to re-establish good relations on behalf of British football within Europe. The climate has been substantially restored, particularly by the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in accepting at once a liability on this country to correct what has gone wrong.
Fourthly, after discussions with the Football Trust, £500,000 is being allocated for the extension of closed-circuit television equipment — a very important contribution to crowd control. That should be sufficient to cover another 30 grounds within the next few months and, hopefully, within the coming season.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to come back to this point, but in relation to the Popplewell inquiry the Minister seemed to indicate that it was prepared to look into certain aspects of the Brussels tragedy. I have had a letter today from Mr. Morgan, the secretary to the inquiry, in which he says:
Your memorandum and attached correspondence has been given to the chairman and the assessors and we are grateful for your evidence. As you appreciate, the investigation into the events at Brussels is, of course, a matter for the Belgian authorities, although any lessons learnt will be taken into account by Mr. Justice Popplewell.
That is all the letter said. That does not give the same impression as the hon. Gentleman has given.

Mr. Shaw: Mr. Justice Popplewell can certainly take into account observations made in relation to the Brussels incident, but he is not conducting the inquiry into that incident. That is being done on two levels in Belgium, as I suspect the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows. First, there is a judicial inquiry in relation to the criminality of the event; secondly, there is an inquiry by the Belgian football association in relation to the game itself, to which I understand UEFA will be giving evidence.
I have referred to the extension of closed-circuit television, which is an important development.
Fifthly, the Home Office is providing three of the special control vehicles that were designed and tested last season for use by the police at sensitive events in the forthcoming season.
Sixthly, the police have improved substantially the coordination of information between police forces and also with the British Transport police.
Seventhly, radio compatibility between the British Transport police and the police system will be established. Eighthly, major efforts are being made by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport to discuss further within the industry initiatives that can be taken to improve the state of the game.
Ninthly, a substantial effort by my hon. Friend at the Council of Europe has achieved a convention which has been fully ratified by 23 Ministers and will become binding, hopefully, on all member countries of the Council of Europe. That major document is in the Library of the House of Commons, so hon. Members may refer to it. It requires the co-ordination of the policies and actions of Government Departments. It requires the signatories to secure that adequate public order resources are employed to counter outbreaks of violence, to ensure that offenders are identified and prosecuted, and to introduce procedures to identify problem matches in advance and provide effective co-operation between authorities. It lays down many other steps to be taken to improve Europe-wide the major measures to contain the breadth of hooliganism.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Shaw: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been arguing that the spread of the problem, its duration and complexity require action to be taken across a broad front. I have indicated to the House that that is being done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) rightly expressed his concern about alcoholism in general and was against the exemption procedures. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will, in due course, hope to catch the eye of the Chairman of the Committee in order that he might make his point. He did, of course, raise certain other specific matters.

Mr. Heffer: The Minister has referred to a document which is obviously relevant to this discussion. It is a document which the Minister for sport has negotiated with his fellow Ministers at the Council of Europe. It is obviously a very important document, but it is not on the Table. We are told that it is in the Library, but nobody has been told about it before. Could the Minister ask for the document to be brought here for the consideration of hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Did the Minister say that it was in the Library?

Mr. Shaw: I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is not in the Library now, it will be. I apologise to the hon. Member for Walton if he has not been able to locate it. I am informed that it is there.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that the Bill was not tough enough to deal with problems outside the ground, but he must agree that the measures for the control of the provision of alcohol outside the ground already rest on the ability of police officers to obtain magistrates' agreement to the closure of licensed premises and off-licences in the area of the ground. This measure provides for a special offence of drunkenness at the entrance to football grounds, and a substantial effort can now be made to prevent those who are drunk from arriving at the ground.
The hon. Gentleman will concede the important points on transport, to which he drew attention. These will provide for alcohol to be banned from vehicles and special coaches on both rail and road. Masters of ferries have the power to close bars, and the same is true of captains of aircraft. Indeed, many of them do so.
The provisions in the Bill refer to hired minibuses as opposed to a private minibus whose owner takes five or six of his friends together with himself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) gave an assurance that the licensed victuallers were happy with the Bill, and I welcome that.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) drew attention to the McElhone committee's report, which suggested that drinking before, during and after the match was at least a contribution to the problem. It is precisely because we have been guided in large measure by the Scottish situation that I welcome that contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) stressed the importance of the responsibility on the clubs to manage their games and to reduce those elements which give rise to some of the most appalling behaviour on the grounds, let alone on the terraces. That is a fair point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) was concerned that policing policies should be changed, although he welcomed the Bill. I accept that there has been a high degree of tolerance about hooliganism when it comes to the way in which magistrates' courts have dealt with it. However, one has seen a change recently. My hon. Friend referred to the judgment delivered recently in Cambridge which resulted in a major custodial sentence.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) referred to the particular problem of the clash between clauses 1 and 10. I accept there is an awkwardness. Indeed, two portions of Bill are not satisfactory. I understand the desirability of ensuring equal treatment

between British Rail employees on both sides of the border. I will undertake to consider the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport before the Bill proceeds to the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) welcomed the Bill, but rightly said that we must not rely on this single measure. Drink is a major contributor to hooliganism at many events, not just football. I am grateful for his support, and I take note of his questions about the problems of drink inside grounds, to which I shall refer shortly.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that a body should be set up similar to the Horserace Betting Levy Board. That thought has been echoed several times in the debate, and I am sure that it deserves consideration — I hope initially by the football authorities recognising that they may have an interest in seeing such a body established because they will have to determine whether they wish to fund it and to operate a system of that kind. However, that is outside the competence of the present Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) supported the Bill, but criticised it as being far too complex. As for our establishing one set of rules for those on the terraces and another set for those occupying executive boxes, this theme was widely used by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I shall come to that point of equity in a moment.
As for police powers, I accept that once again we are asking policemen to perform a significant number of additional tasks at the entrances to grounds. I suspect that they now have a much clearer position than before when it comes to the control of drink, and I hope that they will not find it too difficult to obtain the agreement of local magistrates to the closure of licensed premises. Such cooperation has been given freely in most places. The apprehension of persons actually drunk outside football grounds before matches should reduce the problems internally.

Mr. Madden: The Minister will recall that I asked whether the Bill's provisions would apply to Bradford City football club in the coming season. If they do, how will they be applied, and how will members of the rugby club's social club at the ground be affected?

Mr. Shaw: I understand that Bradford City intends to use the rugby league ground at Odsal next season. I suspect that the intention will be to designate the rugby league stadium as a designated ground for soccer matches. How it applies to rugby league is a matter that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport will discuss with the chairman of Bradford City when he meets him later this week.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) asked how the Bill would help to deal with drunkenness in town centres. That is a problem to which I have alluded already. There should now be a greater containment of the problem of people arriving drunk at the entrances to grounds. If they are drunk, they are committing an offence and will be liable to arrest.
As for the control in town centres, I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the efforts that the police are now making, with the co-operation of the football clubs, to ensure that they have proper control of persons arriving at football grounds by both public and private transport and


can prevent the supporters of visiting clubs running loose through the streets of many town centres which have felt the weight of hooliganism in recent months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) dislikes secondary legislation, and I understand his reasons of principle for that, though I suggest that his argument could be applied to much legislation and not just to this Bill. Although he dislikes it, I hope that he understands why it is necessary to bring a Bill of this character before the House. We are seeking to prevent disorder, and our objective cannot be met by introducing primary legislation on every occasion.
I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) said about the time scale being applied here. The time scale in the Bill is that for the designated event. It has to be one which will ban the sale of alcohol. That is the purpose of the Bill and the principle which clearly has found favour on both sides of the House. Some measure to restrict alcohol should be taken. However, to say that a way round that is to reduce the period of exemption to virtually half an hour before a game begins and half an hour after its conclusion does not seem to me to be an adequate solution to the enormity of the problem.
I suspect that the question of the sale of alcohol inside football grounds occasioned most concern, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath made clear. Much of the debate has been about both the sale and possession of alcohol inside grounds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that that is an important part of our approach to the issue. The Association of Chief Police Officers has told us that the main alcohol problem is caused by people who come tanked up, and we recognise that. The association does not believe that the sale of alcohol within grounds produces particular problems. The main impact of the Scottish legislation has been on people who arrive at grounds drunk or in possession of alcohol, which is why we have laid great stress on making provisions to deal with that.
I recognise that clubs are worried about the effect on their revenue of not selling alcohol inside the grounds. Indeed, substantial revenue is derived from the provision and sale of alcohol. I understand from the football authorities that about 32 clubs are involved in the provision of sponsorship boxes, and that the total revenue from that source is about £4 million a year. That does not include revenue to clubs from catering contracts and other sources. The Football League estimates that about 75 per cent. of the leasing revenue will be at risk if no alcohol is available because boxes are primarily used for entertaining business clients. The Football League estimates that the total income from the sale of drink in bars inside grounds on match days is about £l·5 million a year.
Those figures are significant, and I recognise the interest and anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, we cannot easily duck the problem if we seek to reduce the consumption of alcohol in football stadiums. Although we accept that the major risk comes from people arriving with substantial quantities of drink on board, we must also recognise that if we take no action within stadiums it would seem absurd if people could arrive and tank themselves up at the ground as they saw fit in the hours preceding the game. Therefore, a

policy on the provision of alcohol within the ground needs to be observed to complement and supplement the arrangements for the prevention of alcohol being consumed outside, either through the closure of adjacent premises or by removing potentially drunken spectators at the entrances to the ground. That is the crux of the problem.
The Bill does not go as far as the Scottish Act in that respect. It provides for an exemption which may be applied for to local magistrates by the clubs, which are the primary lessees or licensees for the provision of alcohol. That major exemption is provided because it will help clubs to obtain income from the continued provision of alcohol at defined places, as agreed by magistrates and the police on an application to those magistrates at least twice in a football season. It is crucial that hon. Members recognise that that is because we take seriously the review of conditions pertaining to a club in relation to disorder within the grounds. I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise the importance of such control.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister not concede any of the points made on both sides of the House that the Bill is insufficient? My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I mentioned other matters relating to political Right-wing extremist organisations, and the fact that the only United Kingdom club to have had one of its winning results disqualified in a European competition was a Scottish club, to which previous legislation already applied.

Mr. Shaw: I thought I had made it clear that there were many aspects of the hooliganism problem. We are dealing with the alcohol element. There are, of course, other issues, such as those that the hon. Gentleman raises, but they are not germane to this legislation.
Some hon. Members have regarded the restraint on the ability to sell alcohol, and so to earn revenue for the clubs, as a crucial reason why they should feel dissatisfied with that part of the Bill. I have heard two sets of arguments about boxes. It is argued that it is inequitable to allow the occupants of boxes to be in possession of alcohol while viewing the pitch and, on the contrary, that it is inequitable to prevent them from doing so.
I appreciate the argument that it is unfair and inequitable to bar the occupants of boxes from drinking alcohol in the boxes. But it is the general practice already for respectable spectators elsewhere in the ground to have to leave their seats and go behind the stands for a drink in the public bars. In most grounds, even the directors are not allowed to take drinks into their enclosures in the stands, and instead they, too, go into rooms at the back — into boardrooms, for example — if they wish to have a drink.
We are not totally preventing the occupants of boxes from getting a drink. We are providing in the Bill that, as with other supporters, they should not be able to possess alcohol while in sight of the pitch. Like everyone else, they should go and get their drinks, and consume them, out of sight of the pitch. I do not regard that as unfair in principle. On the contrary, exactly the same rules are applied to everyone.
Not only box holders will be affected by the provision. I am told that at a few grounds, there are bars actually on the terraces. It is undesirable for them to be there, and the Bill will make it unlawful to possess or sell alcohol in such


places. Thus, the prohibition on the possession of alcohol within sight of the pitch will not solely affect box occupants.
I have seen some speculation in the press that clubs will be able to evade the controls on possession of alcohol within sight of the pitch simply by installing curtains or other temporary covers on the windows of private boxes. I will make the position clear on this. The controls will apply throughout the period of the designated sporting event — a period which lasts from two hours before the match until one hour afterwards. It will be an offence to be in possession of alcohol in any area of the ground from which the pitch can be viewed directly during that period. Thus, it would not be sufficient to draw curtains or blinds merely during the period when alcohol is actually consumed. Clubs will have to ensure that alcohol is consumed only in areas which are clearly out of sight of the pitch.
I recognise that in some cases clubs may wish to consider structural alterations to boxes to make it possible to provide an area in which the pitch cannot be viewed so that alcohol can be served there. If this is necessary, clubs will need to ensure, to comply with the law, that the partitions cannot be moved or changed during the period of the designated sporting event. This points either to the installation of permanent partition walls, or at least locks to prevent partitions or shutters from being opened during the relevant period.
I make these points because I know that they have been of concern in particular to the right hon. Member for Gorton. Indeed, he has an amendment down for the Committee stage. I emphasise to him, to the House and to the clubs, that the controls in the Bill cannot be evaded by simple measures such as the installation of curtains. To ensure compliance with the law, it will be necessary to ensure that any structural changes made cannot easily be reversed by their deliberate or accidental action of the occupants. In view of the concern that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Gorton and others, we will consider, before the Bill reaches the other place, whether this point can be made clearer in the legislation.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: All hon. Members who have been in the House for some time want to see the legislation work, and nothing that I suggest is designed to do other than commend the Bill and assist it to work. I want to be sure that I understand the position. If a number of fans, presumably over the age when they can buy liquor, wish to go to the back of the stand to an open bar, they will he able to purchase liquor. Is not the Government's view that the possession of liquor on the ground and the tanking up of fans who have arrived there with too much in their system anyway is one of the causes of the violence? How can it be right to produce a Bill designed to reduce the

problem of alcohol at football grounds which enables people to get more alcohol provided that they go round the back of the stand out of view of the pitch? It does not make sense.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will know that the police, if they believe that there is drunkenness going on and that disorder may occur, can close the individual bar, and have the right so to do. Any provision of alcohol on the grounds will be a matter of exemptions which have to be taken before the magistrates' court. That will require the individual places where alcohol is to be sold to be designated in the exemption order.

Mr. James Hamilton: I wish to get the record straight on the incident in Scotland. In the ground in question there are no bars, and no alcoholic liquor is sold at the ground, at which I am a regular attender. One idiot who was intoxicated attended the ground, threw a missile and missed a player, but was nevertheless prosecuted. I do not think that that is a condemnation of the legislation in Scotland, because it did not happen in the circumstances that the Minister related to the House.

Mr. Shaw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has related that event. However, he will be aware that, except for the transport provision, which has been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East, there are no such provisions in Scotland.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman was relating a situation not related to the consuming of food, which is what goes on in private boxes. Is the Minister telling us that he expects that, between the soup and the fish course people in a private box will get out round the back, have a glass of wine and come back, and then get up between the fish course and the main course and have another glass of wine out of sight? The proposed solution is totally unworkable.

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends required the Bill to be of this character, so no doubt he might speak to them occasionally before he makes such an observation.
In conclusion, I commend the Bill to the House. It will not in itself solve the problem of football violence and football hooliganism, but I believe that it will make a major contribution to doing so. The chief constable of Strathclyde has said that the Scottish police forces regard the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 as a major step towards improving football spectator behaviour in Scotland. We hope and believe that this Bill will be similarly effective in England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. — [Mr. Boscawen.]

Question proposed, That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I object to the proposal that the House should immediately resolve itself into a Committee and proceed forthwith to consideration of the Bill. If we adopt that suggestion, the Bill will be less fully and adequately scrutinised than I believe is necessary.
Anybody who heard the debate of the last six or seven hours will appreciate that there are genuine grounds for disquiet, not least about executive boxes, which was the point touched upon by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the end of his wind-up.
The Bill was published on 26 June — that is, last week. I suggest that there has been inadequate time for the clubs and other interested bodies to formulate their objections to the Bill or to make the representations to interested Members which would in ordinary circumstances be desirable.
The Bill carries within it widespread restrictions. It will undoubtedly impose substantial financial burdens. It is undesirable that we should be asked to proceed so quickly to a scrutiny of the Bill — especially, if I may say so, at nearly 11 o'clock when we have already been considering the Bill for many hours.
The practice is that this House considers a Bill of this sort on the Floor of the House only if it is genuinely uncontroversial or if there is a real requirement of speed. I do not believe that this Bill falls into either category. I do not believe that it is genuinely uncontroversial, nor do I believe that there is a need for unusual dispatch. On that basis, I oppose the motion.

Mr. Peter Pike: I wish to support the sensible comments of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Neither this House nor the country generally has had sufficient time to consider this important item of legislation.
I do not object to the legislation being introduced, because I recognise that there is a problem with which we must deal and that there is a need to do that speedily. I have been present during most of the debate and hon. Members have raised a number of important items, and when the Minister replied he indicated that he would report certain items to another place. That is wrong. Those items should be referred to a Committee of this House to consider and amend.
I recognise the problem, but it would be wrong to pass bad legislation because of the speed with which we are being asked to deal with it.

Mr. Pendry: Although I did not have reservations earlier, as the debate progressed I became convinced by the hon. Members for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that this is a rushed job. It is an important issue. As my right hon. Friend said, this is a Bill for all time, and, as the hon. Member for Grantham said, it can extend to other sports. Therefore, we must get it right and not rush it through.
I support the hon. Member for Grantham and hope that other hon. Members on both sides of the House will follow suit.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that there is indeed a significant sense of urgency about the Bill. There can be no measure on the statute book before the commencement of next season unless this Bill makes rapid progress through the House. I am sure he will agree that it would be wrong not to have such a measure on the statute book before the football season commences. That requires Royal Assent on a strict timetable, which I believe will have to be by 26 July.
On the question of controversiality, I accept that some hon. Members have been critical about certain portions of the Bill, but I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that, with the single exception of himself, every hon. Member who spoke in the previous debate, which began at about 3.40 pm, was in favour of the Bill.
I suggest that we now move to the Committee stage, when many of the points to which my hon. Friend wishes to address himself can no doubt be discussed.

Mr. Maclennan: As the Minister knows, I support the principle of the Bill and share his view that it will make an important contribution towards reducing a serious social evil. I also accept his point about urgency. He is right to say that the Bill should be enacted before the end of the parliamentary Session.
Had the Bill simply been the implementing in England and Wales of the provision in Scotland — which I had originally understood it to be — we would have been going down a well-trodden path, but the Bill departs somewhat from the predecessor measure. Indeed, in his reply to the previous debate the Minister referred to what he considered to be serious misdrafting and a failure to reconcile two clauses of the Bill. I had not spotted what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) spotted, but it is that sort of thing that makes us extremely uneasy about the Government's timetable. It would be of some assistance to the House, before reaching a decision, to have it made plain that it is not a practical alternative to have the Committee stage on another day. It is now rather late, and there are many matters which we would wish to look at in detail, for the sake of good drafting.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Everyone supports the Bill. Everyone appreciates the urgency of it. But would it make any difference if we had another few days to consider some of these details? Would it be too late to consider the Bill next week?
That is one of my shorter speeches.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I stress for the final time to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we must complete the measures which have been laid before the House, which have been agreed in discussion with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for


Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The measures are primarily agreed between us. I suggest that we proceed to the Committee stage as rapidly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Clause 1

OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ALCOHOL ON COACHES AND TRAINS

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 8.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it is convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after first 'vehicle', insert
passenger-carrying ship or aircraft'.
No. 6, in page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (a).

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The amendment would leave out the words that confine the clause to public service vehicles and railway passenger vehicles.
I hope that the reasons for my amendment are self-evident. It is entirely wrong to say that the offences that the Bill creates and the powers that it gives to the police to intervene to prevent those offences should be confined to those who operate or travel in public service vehicles or railway trains. On the face of it, if it is wrong to carry liquor to a football match on a bus, it must be equally wrong to carry liquor to the football match in a transit van, a jeep or a farm vehicle. What we are after is not the nature of the vehicle that carries the liquor, but the fact that the liquor is being carried. Therefore, it seems absurd to limit the offences and the powers simply to what happens on a bus or railway train.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. When the Minister of State replied to the Second Reading debate, it was significant that he stressed it. If the supporters' club had vehicles that were not for hire commercially, and had liquor — I accept that most supporters' clubs would be run responsibly and would not do that — they would not be caught by the law.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I wish to attract the Minister's attention to the matter. It is not only me who is making the point — it is widely supported on both sides of the House. It can be put in practical terms.
Two or three vehicles are proceeding down the road towards a football match, carrying football supporters, manifestly in their football gear. One vehicle up front is a bus that has been hired — perhaps a minibus. If that vehicle is thought by the police to be carrying liquor, the driver is committing an offence, and the persons who put the liquor on board and those who possess it are committing an offence. The second vehicle may be a beat-up old Ford Transit van, but belongs to a group of football supporters. If they are doing any of those things, the police are helpless. The third vehicle may be of the kind

suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It may have been purchased by the fans, and belongs to them as a club. That is a private vehicle, and it is not covered by the public service vehicle rules or by the railway carriage rules.
I wish the Bill well, but it places the police in an intolerable position. My hon. Friend the Minister is opening the doors to those who wish to carry and possess liquor when they go to a football match. They will be able to run rings around the Bill. The House cannot intend that, and my amendment therefore simply applies this clause to all vehicles that are
being used for the principal purpose of carrying passengers for the whole or part of a journey to or from a designated sporting event.
That must be logical and practical. Even if my hon. Friend cannot agree to it now, I hope that he will have a good look at it, discuss its provisions with the police, and amend the clause when the Bill gets to the other place.

Mr. Pendry: I have tabled amendment No. 2 because it is a nonsense that clause 1 should apply only to two sets of vehicles. I support what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has said. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that captains of ships and ferries, or pilots of aircraft, have discretion to take action. Therefore, the Government must beef up the provisions of the Bill. They must ensure that this clause is much more watertight. Many of the people that we want to stop going to football grounds and causing problems will travel by other vehicles than those set out in the clause. I hope that the Government will look at this again. Mine is a probing amendent, and I hope that the Government will clarify their thinking on this matter, and take action in the other place.

Mr. Maclennan: If amendment No. 2 is passed, will it apply only to ships carrying the British flag, or shall we be seeking extra-territorial jurisdiction over foreign vessels proceeding from British ports? That might be rather difficult in practice, but I have no doubt that there are precedents, and I should be grateful for the Minister's advice.

Mr. Pike: This group of amendments illustrates the problems caused by the haste in which the Bill had been drafted. While everybody is broadly in support of the Bill's principles, there are difficulties. It seems illogical to include buses and trains in clause 1, but not ships or aircraft. I do not accept the Minister's argument that the captain of the boat or the plane has the right to close the bar facilities. That is not an adequate solution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said. If the law says that one cannot sell drinks on a train that is principally taking people to or from a football match, the same should apply to a plane carrying passengers from Newcastle to London to watch Newcastle United play.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) made the point clearly. It is illogical that road vehicles that are for hire, whether they are minibuses or whatever, will be caught by the law but that any vehicle that is privately owned will not. Side by side on the motorway there could be two vehicles one of which is caught by the law and one of which is not. No one can argue that it is right for a person to be able to drink in a


vehicle that is privately owned and not in one that is available for hire. Those who have to apply this measure, when enacted, will be in an invidious position.
I accept that the wording of amendment No. 2 could be improved and I hope that the Government will be prepared to give some thought to trimming the wording of this group of amendments so as to arrive properly at their objective. We are debating the principle and not precise wording.

Mr. Lawrence: My objection to this sort of provision, which I think my hon. Friend the Minister of State will concede has been conceived in the most unseemly haste, is that it might result in the law being brought into disrepute, for reasons which have already been advanced.
I have perceived that one of the functions of Back Benchers is to ensure that new legislation does not attract criticism that will lower appreciation of the law in the minds of those for whom the House is legislating. If we introduce an exclusory and narrow form of restraint and ignore the ways in which those who wish to take advantage of the law will be able to do so, I fear that the public will laugh at this measure. That will result in the Government having done a disservice to society.
I am not saying that we should follow all the suggestions which have been made in this short debate and on Second Reading, but the issue before us requires further consideration. We should consider the suggestions that others have made. It is clear that the issue should be weighed and balanced with care. Our discussions on this group of amendments and others will serve principally to underline the fact that we are introducing speedily law that in the end will be bad law that will be laughed at by the public. In introducing and implementing it, we shall bring our system of law into disrepute. I beg my hon. Friend to take closer consideration of the arguments that are being advanced, so that we can place a better measure on the statute book.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I respect the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) advanced their arguments. I understand why they feel that it is necessary to extend the range of vehicles that are to be covered by these provisions.
The prime purpose of the clause is to deal with those who are journeying to a designated event. I suspect that there will be a relevant infrequency in the aircraft that are used for the conveyance of persons to certain designated sporting events. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will recognise that there will be an element of difficulty if we seek to control those who are travelling on a British aircraft to a designated sporting event within the United Kingdom. That would be a relatively infrequent use of this measure, and I accept the principle behind his argument.
As for journeys by ship, the Government feel that the master's authority will be sufficient. It is fairly widely used in the operation of the cross-Channel services, and the police have said that they have received good cooperation from that source. I shall take a view on that. I take on board the argument of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the Bill, when enacted, will apply to British vessels only. Passengers might transfer to other boats and that might bring them outside the competence of the Bill.
11 pm
The main issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I sympathise with the argument that the measure should be extended to cover privately owned vehicles which carry many spectators to grounds. However, such an extension would cause difficulty for the police, although if my hon. Friend suggests such an extension he must believe that the police would be happy to handle it.
We have modelled the provision on precedent. We have followed the public service vehicle definition, which has operated since 1980. I do not think that I can be accused of acting with undue haste.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will not press his amendment. I ask him to bear in mind that we are anxious to pass the legislation before the start of the next season. He will be aware that the Government expect to introduce public order legislation next Session. That legislation could be an appropriate vehicle for reconsidering the issue if there is shown to be a significant gap in efforts to contain alcohol being consumed by those in transit to designated events. We could examine the clause in more detail if that were thought appropriate after consultation and after we have had time to assess how the Bill works in practice. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister gave an inadequate and tortuous explanation which has nothing to do with the problem that will face the country at the end of the ban on British teams going to Europe. As I said on Second Reading, this is a Bill for all time. It is a Bill of permanency, like all legislation. The ban on our teams going to Europe is not for all time, so I agree that the ramifications of the Bill deserve more attention than we can give them tonight. I make no party point. The Bill has the agrement of all parts of the House.
We must consider the effect of the Bill in five years time when the ban on English football is lifted and when people will be travelling to the continent to watch English teams play there. All that we can do today is examine past experience. All Ministers responsible for sport have had to deal with the problem. People travel on trains well tanked up and then board boats. That will stop when the legislation is in force.

Mr. Lawrence: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that getting tanked up on trains will stop merely because of the legislation? Clause 1(1)(b) states that the measure applies to a vehicle which
is being used for the principal purpose of carrying passengers for the whole or part of a journey to or from a designated sporting event.
What is to stop a supporters' club deciding to travel by inter-city or scheduled train which is not
for the purpose of carrying passengers
and on which they can get tanked up? It is optimistic to say that that will be stopped by the Bill, because it will not. The problem will merely be transferred to a different type of train.

Mr. Howell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. He anticipates my next point. In my experience there is a much greater problem on ordinary passenger trains than on trains likely to be covered by the designation procedure. That will be extremely important in five or 10 years' time, when most people have forgotten these debates.
Equally important, what is to be a designated event in terms of European football? The Minister has said nothing about that so far. If he says that no match on the continent can be designated under the Bill, he is saying that the Bill will have no effect on British supporters going to matches on the continent if and when the European ban is lifted.
We are trying to deal with a problem, but the approach that we have taken is leading us into a tortuous mess. If the European ban is lifted in five or 10 years' time, how will the Bill help to deal with the kind of people who caused the trouble in Brussels? So far as I can see, it is completely irrelevant and could even be dangerous. I do not suggest that the amendment should be pressed to a Division, but I hope that the Government will agree to consider the points that have been raised, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has requested. The Minister has agreed to reconsider one matter. Why will he not reconsider other aspects, when good and wise advice is being given to him about the nature of the problems that will be created if he does not do so? We can agree to do that without jeopardising the timetable, but we must get this right. At present, the Bill gets nothing right in relation to European football. We must know whether matches in Europe can be designated and how the Government explain the omission of boats and aircraft from the Rains of transport covered by the Bill.

Mr. John Evans: My right hon. Friend refers to the possibility of the European ban on British league clubs being lifted in five or 10 years' time, but some of the most disgraceful and appalling scenes have been caused by so-called fans following the England team, which has not yet been banned. That means that supporters of that team can still go to Europe in their usual drunken fashion, wrecking grounds and cities on the continent, which will no doubt result in a speedy decision by the European authorities to ban that team as well.

Mr. Howell: Further evidence of the Government's superficial approach to these matters is the fact that, when the England team played in south America, Fascist thugs and National Front supporters got on to the plane and insulted coloured members of the England team. I am told that the longer the journey continued and the more drink they had, the greater the problem they caused, with very damaging effects. Account must be taken of that kind of incident. Is permanent legislation of this kind relevant to that kind of incident, or is it not? If it is not, the Minister must tell us.
It is even more difficult for the Football Association to control English supporters than it is for individual clubs. I received today a memorandum from the Football League which contains three pages of incidents of the kind that we are bewailing, which have nothing at all to do with English clubs. They all took place on the continent, but little has been heard about them. Of course we must deal with our problem, but it must be dealt with in the context of the wider European problem.

Mr. Giles Shaw: It is only right and courteous that I should seek to respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The Bill applies to events in England and Wales which are so designated, but there is a distinction between the ground and the event, as the designation procedure makes clear. Therefore, it would be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend — and I believe he intends to do so— to

designate an overseas soccer match. The provisions relating to travel would then apply, but only within this country. We cannot legislate for travel on the continent of Europe. That is outside this country's jurisdiction. The right hon. Member for Small Heath knows that very well.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not know it very well. If a football match on the continent of Europe is to be designated, I do not understand why the Bill's provisions should not apply to the aircraft or ship that carries passengers to that event. This is a technical point, which may not have been considered. The Government ought to consider it, together with the other points that have been raised.

Mr. Shaw: It would be possible for a British aircraft or ship which was carrying passengers to a designated event in, say, Brussels to be policed by the British police, but they would not have any rights at the point of landing. The usual procedure is for the carrier to assume this responsibility.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not believe that my hon. Friend has disclosed to the House all the reasons which his Department has suggested for opposing my amendment. He said that he had a good deal of sympathy for the view that this ought to apply to private lorries, trucks, Land Rovers and transit vans, but that if it does not work it can always be dealt with in the public order Bill which is to be introduced later in the year. That is odd, because it means that my hon. Friend whatever his officials say, has some doubt about whether we have got it right am.' thinks that there might be another method of getting it right, but later. Why not now? I do not understand the logic which says that the House must press on to compel people who hire a van or bus to be caught by the Bill when those who own them are not. I do not understand the enforceability of it either.
11.15 pm
I shall not press the matter to a Division, because I rather rely on the good sense of the Government to consider and deal with the matter between now and the Bill reaching the other place. Tomorrow, I shall take a group of 250 mentally handicapped athletes to Dublin for the special Olympic games there. Many of them will travel in buses, which will go on vessels, and be followed by smaller vehicles, including Land Rovers, many of which are owned by the families involved. Those Land Rovers will carry the luggage and sporting gear.
The House should apply those circumstances to a designated football match in Belfast. The hired or public service vehicle will fall within the remit of the Bill and the police will be able to deal with it, but the wholly owned truck behind, into which the booze might have been put falls outside the Bill and cannot be dealt with by the police. The fact that they are both on a ship underlines what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said. We are apparently in difficulty.
I do not think that I need to press the point further, but I beg my hon. Friend the Minister of State to note what I said on Second Reading. The police have come to the House many times and asked for this legislation and they have been dismissed. Seven or eight times I have gone to Home Secretaries in different Governments asking for action. We were always told that the police were wrong


and that the Government knew best. We are acknowledging today that the police were right and that successive Governments did not know best.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of what I am saying, not because it is based on my judgment, although I was a Transport Minister and know something of it, but because it is based on the experience related to me by the Police Federation, which is involved daily in road traffic policing on motorways. It was intimately involved with the difficulties with the miners' strike and the rest. These are practical men and they tell me that it would be extremely difficult to enforce a law which applies to public service vehicles but not to private ones.
The problem is the carriage of liquor, not ownership of the vehicle. I hope that the Government will find some way in which to apply the Bill to all vehicles carrying liquor to sporting grounds.

Mr. Evans: I thought that the Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that the Home Secretary will have the power to designate sporting events abroad. Presumably that means that he could designate a match in Brussels.
All of our friends in Europe who are interested in football will be watching what is happening here tonight with great interest. They will be aware that the House of Commons is rushing through a Bill ostensibly to deal with the terrible problem of football violence. We all know that this was brought about by the appalling events in Brussels a few weeks ago when 38 people lost their lives. If the Home Secretary were to designate another football match in Brussels, presumably fans who intended to go to that match would have to travel to the port of Dover, and the application of this Act would mean that no alcohol would be available on the bus or train taking them there. However, the moment they got off the train or bus at Dover, they could join the ship and embark on appalling binges all the way across the Channel. They would then disembark in France or Belgium and carry on in a drunken manner until they wrecked the city of Brussels or whichever city in Europe in which the match was to be played.
Surely the Minister will accept that the European civic, parliamentary and football authorities will not be able to make any sense out of the measure by which the British Government are presumably hoping to solve the problem in England. The Bill will not solve the problem. Nothing has been done about the English supporters in Europe, where some of the worst and most appalling problems have occurred over the last few years. That seems to be an absolute nonsense and another good reason why this Bill should have a proper Committee stage when all these issues can be looked at and proper amendments carried out. A better measure could come out of a thoughtful Committee stage.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I listened very carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). Often I agree with him, but on this occasion what he is proposing may complicate the duties of the police because the prohibition and effect within clause 1 apply to a vehicle which satisfies two criteria: first, that it is a public service vehicle, and, secondly, that its principal purpose is that set out in subsection (1)(b).

My hon. Friend is proposing that it should apply to any vehicle
being used for the principal purpose".
That is precisely the point. In respect of a public service vehicle or a railway passenger vehicle, it might be relatively easy to ascertain and then prove the principal purpose, because inevitably there will be documentation and such like which will establish the principal purpose, subject to the important point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), which arises only when potential spectators get into a public vehicle which is also going off somewhere else. That is the important point. In the majority of cases there will be hiring documents which will establish the purpose. The police may stop a private vehicle which is trundling down the motorway — a vehicle containing potential spectators — but it can be jolly difficult for them to prove the principal purpose. Unless people have got scarves and caps on their heads, they will say "A football match? I never go to football matches." The burden on the police is considerable.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am astonished that my hon. Friend has not been following events. We have just had the dispute in the mining industry. The police had to take a view about the purpose of people travelling in private cars, who were not wearing football uniforms, who they judged were going to a picket line, and the courts sustained them. I do not understand how my hon. Friend could fail to recognise that.

Mr. Hogg: I was very uneasy about that particular practice. The courts sustained it, but I do not like what they did in that context. I am dealing with a specific offence. We have to ask not whether it is possible but whether it is easy for police first to determine and then to prove the primary purpose of a journey being conducted in a private car by people prepared to lie. I say that it is not easy. My hon. Friend is making the task of the police rather more difficult than he currently contemplates.

Mr. Pendry: Many people here and abroad are listening in to this debate. At the beginning they might have thought that this was Parliament at its best, with the Front Benches agreeing the basic principles of the Bill, but as the debate has progressed Parliament has come out in a worse light. The Minister does not seem to be listening all the time, but I hope that he will take seriously the points that are being made. I said at the outset that I hoped that before the Bill completed its passage through the other place the Minister would reflect on what has been said.
It is difficult to get through to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) when he is having another debate, but I agree with a great deal of what he said. It is difficult for people to argue about Britain's good name abroad when part of the reason for our bad name emanates from the ferries that go from here to other countries. I disagree profoundly with the Minister when he says that we have a good record there because captains have taken the right sort of action. Much of our bad name abroad stems from our licensing laws and from the fact that when these so-called supporters get on a ferry they get steadily drunk. By the time they get to the foreign football ground they have treble vision.
The Minister will be irresponsible if he does not take account of the points that have been made. We were objecting earlier because the House of Commons is


dealing with an important Bill at such a rapid pace. It is incumbent upon the Minister to reflect on the points that have been made before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Maclennan: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) concerning the passenger-carrying ships or aircraft. There are serious practical difficulties in the way of operating the ban which is the purpose of the amendment. An extremely important point has been raised by the amendment. We ought not to leave it on the basis that we can rely upon the good sense of captains of British vessels who may be empowered to, and sometimes do, stop the sale of liquor.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of well recorded cases of drunkenness on ferries, where the captain has shut the bar and the drunken thugs have actually broken down the shutters and proceeded to rob the bar? The captain was behaving with perfect propriety, but, unfortunately, the drunks were not taking account of that.

Mr. Maclennan: Enforcement of the law is a practical problem. I see that there is a difficulty in exercising jurisdiction over foreign vessels leaving our ports and in dealing with cases such as the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has described.
The Bill is designed to reduce the incidence of drunkenness associated with football matches. Certainly the Brussels tragedy had that dimension. If we are to make progress in limiting the damage of drunkenness to international sporting events, we need to approach the problem by means of international agreements and understandings, and some arrangement which does not apply only to British vessels.
There is a further difficulty about the amendment. It is my understanding that very few vessels are principally engaged in carrying football fans to matches abroad. The amendment probably does not cover the issue in the way that it needs to be covered. In his winding-up speech the Minister referred to the importance of the Council of Europe treaty arrangements which his Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport brought back from Strasbourg. I do not think that this matter was touched on in that treaty. It is a matter which ought to be discussed in that context, and there ought to be international agreements about the provision of alcohol on vessels or cross-frontier transport being used primarily for carrying people to spoiling events.
Although we do not see this as a means of stopping a gap in the Bill, none the less it raises an extremely important issue and one which we should not simply dismiss as being dealt under the powers given to captains of vessels. There is the further point that not only is the alcohol available at bars, but that it is available in the duty-free shops at a price which most people find extremely attractive. That makes it the more hazardous and the more urgent to do something about it in an international context.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Bill applies only to England and Wales, and I had not thought that it would be necessary for a member from Northern Ireland to speak at this stage. The amendment extends the issue to ferry boats. I was thinking simply in terms of ships sailing from the southern English coast to the continent,

but the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) mentioned ships going from England to Northern Ireland, and that raised a dfferent ussue in my mind upon which I would like some clarification.
As the Minister knows, I represent the east coast of County Down, and between there and Engand and Scotland we look upon the waters as United kingdom waters, colloquially known as British waters. As the Bill affects England and Wales only, presumably if we accept the amendment we will be talking in terms of the waters around England and Wales. Could someone please explain to me where the waters around England and Wales end and the waters around Northern Ireland commence, because up to now they have all been one?

Mr. Giles Shaw: I recognise the important point which the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has just put to me, but it would be very tricky for me to give an instant answer. I shall draw the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ask him to comment on it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that I do not intend arty discourtesy in suggesting that we could at some time consider extending the provision to private vehicles There is a major difficulty, and this was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), in the extension of what would virtually be a stop-and-search operation to private vehicles, on the understanding that they may or may not be going to a designated sporting event. It would be an extension of policing which could be very broad and very time-consuming, quite apart from the difficulties of stopping and searching many people. To me, at any rate, it would not be something which we could entertain immediately, but would wish to take advice upon it.
The transport provisions in the Bill are meant to deal with public sector transport which is available for hire and licensed. That is why they do not cover a privately owned mini-bus, for example, or other similar vehicle in the ownership of private citizen who may have three or four other persons with him. That is how the Bill was conceived, and, of course, it was conceived in that way in the Scottish Act.

Mr. Tony Banks: I understand what the Minister says about a privately owned vehicle, but what about a vehicle hired from a hiring company? Would that be included?

Mr. Shaw: I believe that that would still constitute a privately owned vehicle. The vehicle would be owned by a private company. It would not be plying for hire in the normal sense. I shall take advice on that and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Banks: This is very important. I intervened on Second Reading to remind the Minister that a number of supporters are in the habit of hiring mini-vans and coaches. It is clear that they will try to get round the legislation. They are getting round the existing prohibitions on the travelling of supporters which official supporters' clubs are imposing. If the Minister does not include a provision to this effect in the Bill, he will leave a very large loophole.

Mr. Shaw: I give notice to the hon. Gentleman that I shall look at that against the background of the problem which we are seeking to contain, which is the provision of alcohol on public transport vehicles arriving for designated sporting events.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) asked a question relating to matches abroad. The powers of the Bill will apply to the United Kingdom portion of journeys to designated events abroad. However, we could not take responsibility for what occurs between the port of arrival on the continent and the eventual destination. The ports of departure of ferries under United Kingdom control will be able to continue to take advice on how they should run their bars. The police frequently ask them to close bars, but the responsibility will be with the ferry operators. The existence of this legislation and the importance attached to it will provide a legislative background which I imagine ferry operators will wish to see. From the point of view of a United Kingdom ferry operator, I am sure that that would be so when transporting spectators to a designated event abroad.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has been good enough to say that he will look again at various parts of the clause. Will he consider the important point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), that clause 1 does not apply when a large number of prospective spectators get on to a train whose primary purpose is not to convey those spectators to a football match?

Mr. Shaw: We considered that with some care. The transport control arrangements in the Bill derive largely from the special coach or special train arrangements which our transport operators provide. We have added other vehicles for hire — vehicles which are licensed and available for hire. However, we have not sought to extend the provisions of the Bill to scheduled services. It would be impossible to say that a scheduled service was designed purely to convey persons to a designated event. My hon. Friend will be aware that for example, on scheduled rail services British Rail byelaws enable it to cease providing alcohol, and frequently it does just that.

Mr. Pike: As I understand it, when the Millwall supporters were travelling to Luton, many of the problems did not arise on special trains. They occurred on trains running on the normal service. They would not have had bars, anyway, because of the short distance that they were travelling. People took their own drink on to the trains. If they did that, they would not be covered by this legislation.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will realise that should the Bill become law, as I sincerely hope it will, it will be an offence to arrive at a football ground drunk.

Mr. Pendry: I found the Minister's reply wholly unsatisfactory, as I am sure other hon. Members did. I hope that because Members of the other place will be able to read the debate they will reflect on it, note the Minister's unsatisfactory reply and take positive action. I do not at this stage intend to press my amendment to a Division, but I hope that the other place will read our debate and take appropriate action.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'designated'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at end insert
'to be held within the area of a designated sports ground'.
No. 36, in clause 9, page 7, line 11, leave out lines 12 to 37 and insert
'falling within part I of the Schedule to this Act'.
No. 37, in page 7, leave out lines 23 to 25.
No. 41, in the Schedule, page 9, line 3, at beginning insert
'The following sports grounds shall be treated as a "designated sports ground" for the purposes of this Act:—
All grounds at which matches between teams in the first and second divisions of the Football League may from time to time be played.'

Mr. Hogg: This group of amendments is designed to achieve two purposes. The first is to delete from the Bill the phrase "sporting events", and the second is to seek to define within the Bill the sporting grounds to which the Bill applies. I had the advantage of advancing my arguments in favour of both propositions on Second Reading, and therefore I shall not speak in detail.
It is important to remember that the mischief with which we are dealing is hooliganism at football matches. I am opposed to any suggestion that we should extend the scope of the Bill beyond that mischief, but that is what we are doing, because the Bill enables the Secretary of State to extend the provisions on criminal offences and sanctions to any sporting event and any sporting ground that he cares to designate. He will be able to do that by secondary legislation which is subject to the imperfect control of the negative resolution, which I criticised earlier.
I should prefer the Bill, first, to exclude sporting events, because it is not necessary to bring sporting events within the control of the Bill. Secondly, and more important, the Committee should define the classes of ground to which we shall extend the Bill, rather than leave it to the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State, who can use the enabling powers which the Bill confers upon him. In summary, I wish to cut the scope of the Secretary of State's powers.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I support the amendments, because I am worried about the scope of the Bill. I should like to see it confined to soccer matches. In my constituency I have the Saints' football ground and the Hampshire county cricket ground, which celebrates its centenary this year. If these provisions had applied during the first day of the recent match against the Australians, during which not a ball was bowled and much alcohol was consumed — that was the only consoling event of the day — nobody could have consumed any alcohol.
The powers being taken are too extensive. I know that the Bill is based on the Scottish experience, but I am suspicious of that, because the Scots do not play cricket. Cricket is an English factor which must be considered. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to restrict the scope of the Bill specifically to soccer grounds.

Mr. Maclennan: I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on the undesirability of extending the criminal law by subordinate legislation. I admit, however, that what is proposed has already been done in Scotland in the 1980 Act. But it would be preferable, should the Secretary


of State want to use these powers over a sport other than football, that Parliament should have an opportunity to express its view by debating an affirmative resolution.
I am not altogether in sympathy with the view about the designation of sporting events. Occasions may occur when this type of control may be needed in sport and when it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to act quickly, without reference to Parliament.
Regrettably, we do not have an opportunity to vote on whether this type of provision should be subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure, so the hon. Member for Grantham was right to draw the attention of the Committee to the undesirability of proceeding in the way proposed.

Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has produced a series of amendments clearly designed to confine designation not only to the game of soccer but to the first and second divisions of that game, and I appreciate why he seeks to do so.
It would not be acceptable to the Government to limit the Bill, for two reasons. First, the case that he has chosen — of limiting the measure to first and second division football — would prevent the reasonable use of the Secretary of State's power to extend designation to other divisions and other sports stadiums, should he so wish.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend explained on Second Reading, the occasion could arise when it would be desirable to add other sports to those covered by the Bill. The ability to do so should the need arise is, in our view, an important part of the primary legislation that the Committee is discussing. I reiterate my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, also given on Second Reading, that we have no immediate intention of designating sports other than soccer.
A further objection to the amendment is that it would catch all sporting events, whatever the sport, at first and second division stadiums. Rugby league matches, greyhound racing and even athletics might be caught should they take place inside a first or second division stadium, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish that to happen. I hope that he will appreciate why I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment and that he will take the assurance that there is no present intention to extend the designation beyond soccer.
The answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is that, should there be orders designating other sports, they would be subject to the negative resolution procedure and laid before the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I welcome the Minister's assurance. In seeking to designate first and second division clubs, I was pointing out that the Bill should enumerate the clubs, games or grounds to which the measure applied. I accept that I should have set out more clubs or divisions.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4).

The First Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Hogg: The amendment is designed to delete from the Bill the offence of being drunk on a vehicle or on entry

to a designated ground. My reason for wishing to do this was advanced on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who rightly pointed out that drunkenness was an extremely subjective offence. It covers a wide band of inebriation. It is not easy to prove in a court of law. In principle, I am opposed to the creation of offences which are difficult to establish as matters of evidence. There are already relevant offences such as that of being drunk and disorderly, which is somewhat easier to prove than the simple offence of being drunk. I am therefore opposed to the creation of offences which are difficult to prove.
Moreover, the Bill already contains prohibitions that go a long way to achieving what the Minister of State would like to achieve—a restriction on excessive drink. Those clauses, of course, contain the prohibition on the possession of intoxicating liquor and on intoxicating liquor being consumed in public service vehicles. I think that these two offences are too subjective to be included in the Bill. For that reason, I wish them to be deleted.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) were not sitting quite so close to me because I have to say that I hope that the Minister will resist the amendments.
It is a common problem for the police to deal with the offence of drunkenness. The advice to me is that the amendments would handicap the police in administering the law and in handling the problem.

Mr. Ashby: I spoke on Second Reading on this point. There are existing offences of drunkenness in public places in any event. This does not add a great deal to the existing law. A public place is a place to which the public have access. I should have thought that, right up to the gates of the sports stadium, if not within it, those being places to which the public have access, the offence of drunkenness is an existing offence.
The offence of drunkenness in a public place is very difficult to prove. We now have intoximeters. It is very simple to put an intoximeter limit on this. Why not create a specific offence, if we are to have such an offence, and let people know that they cannot drink, say, more than three pints of beer and go to a sports ground, rather like driving a car? One would have to have a licence to go to the sports ground and the offence would be that one was drunk in charge of a sports ground. Then we would know where we were.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I fully understand the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to remove an offence that he finds it difficult to prove; that must be an embarrassment in many ways to a lawyer of his distinction.
One of the main principles of the Bill is to eliminate drunkenness on arrival at a designated sports ground, which is what we are discussing.

Mr. Chope: Is it not already an offence to arrive at a sports ground drunk? Section 1 of the Licensing Act 1902 states:
If a person is found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not … and appears to be incapable of taking care of himself, he may be apprehended and dealt with according to law.
There is the further offence of being drunk and disorderly. Can my hon. Friend say why these offences, which are already on the statute book, are not being enforced to a greater extent?

Mr. Shaw: I am coming to that. As my hon. Friend says, there has existed since, I think, 1872 the common offence of drunkenness. I am not entirely convinced whether, after more than 100 years, it has been difficult or impossible to prove in courts of law. It has certainly stood the test of time.
We are not entirely clear yet that the public place element, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) referred, applies to all parts of a football ground. We have had certain cases in relation to the pitch which have been accepted as being public, but not on an alcohol offence. To make it clear that this will be the case, we have thought it necessary to make this provision.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham will recognise that if we are to provide proper legislation we must deal with drunkenness within the context of the designated sporting event and stadium. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ALCOHOL, CONTAINERS ETC. AT SPORTS GROUNDS

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'liquor' to end of line 20.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
No. 21, in page 2, line 39, at end add
'provided that at the material time

(i) it does hold such a product and
(ii) is not used by any person deliberately to cause injury'.

Mr. Hogg: The purpose of the amendment is to delete the reference to "controlled container" in clause 2. The object behind the inclusion of this part of the Bill is to reduce the number of objects that can be used as missiles and thrown at people — hence the restriction on the possession of controlled containers.
The Committee will wish to understand that the definition of a controlled container is so wide that, in effect, it would include any object containing liquid, other than medicine bottles. It would apply to obvious objects, such as a beer bottle, but also to a hip flask, a thermos flask, a carton of milk and a bottle of scent. No doubt there are other bizarre examples.
The prohibition on a controlled container is an instance of the Government going too far in an attempt to deal with a mischief. There are three reasons for saying that. The Bill provides that it is an offence to possess intoxicating liquor at a designated ground. For obvious reasons, one cannot possess intoxicating liquor unless one also posseses the container to hold it. Therefore, once there is a prohibition on the possession of intoxicating liquor, with that is an effective prohibition on the possession of a container.
If we consider the classes of container to which the prohibition applies — thermos flask, milk carton, and so on — we immediately realise that those are not the sort of objects likely to be thrown. I accept that people who are

drunk might want to throw a beer bottle, but they are caught by the prohibition on intoxicating liquor. The sort of people who come to grounds equipped with a thermos flask, a carton of milk or a wife's bottle of scent would not wish to throw missiles.
The Bill is capable of being extended widely. For example, it could be extended to cricket matches. I can understand that the Committee might take the view that, because a football match is of relatively short duration, it does not matter if people are stopped from consuming liquid during the match, unless they go behind the stand. But what happens if that is applied to racing, to Henley or to cricket? The prohibition would become oppressive. for example, one could not have a bottle of coke or a thermos flask or drink a milk shake. That would be an example of the Government going too far — yet the opportunity to do so is contained in the Bill.
Therefore, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that this is an instance of the Government, out of an abundance of caution, introducing legislation that is neither necessary nor desirable.

12 midnight

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I should like to speak to amendment No. 21. My concern is that there is excluded from the definition of "controlled container" anything that is used to hold a medicinal product within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968. That is fine, because we must cover St. John Ambulance people, the Red Cross and others present at football matches to render first aid. However, it is within the knowledge of those who have to enforce the law at football matches that once a medicine bottle has been emptied, possibly for a perfectly good reason, and is then discarded, it can become the very thing that we seek to prohibit — a missile. It can be thrown.
Therefore, it is important that when we exclude something containing a medicinal product, we are sure that it contains medicine and will not be used to injure somebody else. If a hooligan got hold of a full medicine bottle, or a syringe — although I am not certain that a syringe comes under the Medicines Act — and threw that bottle, it would cause just as much damage as a beer or milk bottle. It is not what the bottle contains that matters, but the damage that it can do. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will look at the intention of amendment No. 21.

Mr. Ashby: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind two points. First, I am disappointed, because I thought that the directors would be able to have a cup of tea at half-time, but I think that the teapot and the cups would be designated as containers, and they would not be allowed to have them.
Secondly, one essential amendment will have to be made in the other place. No game is complete without a gentleman on the sidelines with a bucket and a sponge. An amendment will have to be moved to permit a bucket and a sponge to be on the pitch so that people who are injured can receive that little bit of water that seems to do them so much good. That is essential.

Mr. Jim Lester: I have one brief point to make with regard to missiles. People have been injured by £1 coins that have been thrown at goalkeepers. Where does one finish?

Mr. Pike: I recognise that there are difficulties on the amendment. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)


referred to other sporting events. I do not want to pursue that line, because I hope that we shall not reach the stage where the Minister has to extend designated grounds to sports such as cricket, rowing, and so on. One hopes that those crowds continue to behave responsibly and that the football crowds will return to doing so.
The hon. Gentleman said that a football match lasting an hour and a half was not long, and that perhaps it was not necessary to have a drink. With respect, in my part of the country, where it is cold in the winter, a cup of tea or soup from a thermos flask is a common thing for supporters to have. I have no doubt that if they cannot take that soup or hot drink along to have at some stage of the game, some spectators, particularly in January and the colder spells of the season, will be deterred from going to the sporting event.
I recognise the difficulty of dealing with the alcohol problem and how to determine what is in a thermos flask, but I hope that the Minister will accept my point. I know that the south can get cold weather, but in the north, on open terraces in the winter, a hot drink of soup is welcome to many spectators. At many grounds, if there were a large crowd, it would not be possible for all the spectators to buy a hot drink from the facilities at the club. Therefore, many would depend on being able to take in a thermos flask.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I understand what the Government are trying to do, but I hope that we shall be able to ensure that fathers will be able to take their sons to football grounds and have a flask of soup or whatever and that the lady who has her bottle of perfume will not be guilty of an offence. The way round the problem may be to alter clause 2(1) to read:
A person who has intoxicating liquor or, without reasonable excuse, a controlled container".
That would mean that a person would not automatically be guilty of an offence. The use of the words "without reasonable excuse" would enable people to plead not guilty if they had something straightforward such as soup or perfume. That would achieve what the Government want, so could those words be inserted?

Mr. Chope: The Bill would not be dramatically weakened by the removal of references to controlled containers, bearing in mind that containers with alcohol in them would already be excluded by the Act, if the Bill becomes law. I was concerned to read a summary of the Bill in The Times that described a controlled container as
any bottle, can, or other portable container designed to carry liquid, but medicine is excluded. Obviously police will be expected to exercise their discretion.
Loose definitions that lead commentators to say that police will exercise discretion as to whether to arrest somebody who, for example, has a thermos flask with him, bring the law into disrepute. If Members of Parliament, or a member of the legal profession or anybody who does not have a criminal record commits an offence, he does not want to rely on the good sense and discretion of the police not to arrest him because the law was not sensible. It would be better if the Government thought again about this part of the Bill, bearing in mind that it does not go to the root of the mischief with which the Government are seeking to deal — alcohol abuse outside football grounds.
From the notes on clauses, it seems that the justification for this clause is that controlled containers do not amount to offensive weapons within the meaning of the law. The

notes on clauses make it clear that if somebody had an object with him that he uses, or intends to use, in an offensive way, that will be against the law.
Why pick just on thermos flasks and other similar containers? What about people who take fireworks on to the terraces? What about people who take banners on to the terraces? These often have poles attached to them, and are in themselves often provocative and obscene. The Government could think more clearly about this, and have a specific clause dealing with offensive weapons and objects that could be used offensively. They could be dealt with separately from this clause, which deals with intoxicating substances.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of questions so that I do not have to intervene in his speech. First, if, quite lawfully, following an exemption that has been granted by a magistrates court, a football ground is allowed to serve drinks in those areas that are out of the view of the pitch, those who go to get their drink will have to receive it in something. Do I take it that they will be able to receive it only in what one can only call soft containers, and that the club will not be allowed to serve alcohol in glasses or cans or anything like that? I hope that that will be the condition of the magistrates court granting the exemption.
Secondly, there will be a real practical problem if thermos flasks were to be excluded from the clause simply because it is not beyond the wit of man for those who wanted to circumvent the Act, if the Bill becomes law, to take booze into the ground by carrying it in their thermos flasks. One cannot ask the police or the club to have to require people to open their flasks so that the contents can be checked on.

Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), in his final observation, put his finger on one of the problems that we face, which is to provide reasonable restraint as defined in the Bill against the misuse of containers. The use of containers can be extended substantially, without much intellectual effort, to include a range of articles which in one sense are containers and which when empty are articles which, potentially, can be used for offensive purposes.
We must recognise the problem of offensive weapons being used in football crowds. Their use has become all too frequent during matches. Indeed, it has been discovered that £1 coins are used as offensive weapons. The misuse of containers is a problem and the Scottish Act includes definitions of "container" primarily to deal with the offensive nature of the problem as well as to exclude alcohol being brought into a ground in a container.
We shall not be doing a service to the general provisions of the Bill if we seek to dilute the problem that we face with the misuse of containers once they have been emptied of something that might be lawful to take to a match. If the trainer's bucket is to be a plastic one, that might satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) and the trainer. Such a container is unlikely to be used for an offensive purpose and we shall have to ensure that it is kept full of water. In that way it would be used for the purpose for which it was intended.

Mr. Ashby: There is a problem, because an absolute offence is being created. There is no excuse, and whether the bucket is plastic or any other material, its use will be an offence. That is as sure as night follows day.

Mr. Shaw: Unless it is used for medicinal purposes. Football trainers have a number of containers which they use for various purposes. For example, aerosol sprays are widely used by trainers and others who attend those who are hurt, so called, in football accidents, but they could be used as offensive weapons. They would be caught under this measure but for the fact that they could be regarded as part of the medicinal needs of those who operate as trainers.
We must be sure that the interpretation of this provision is sensitive to the needs for which it is designed to apply. The example that was directed to cricket is one that we must examine carefully. The Scottish Act has been on the statute book for some time, and it is enforced in a country with quite a cold climate in which a thermos flask, for example, might be used frequently. As I understand it, such containers have not caused a problem. However, I take the point and we shall have to consider carefully whether we have things right. I hope that I take the Committee with me on the importance of dealing with containers which can be misused and at the same time dealing with containers of alcoholic liquids.

Mr. Ashby: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but a lady with a handbag containing a bottle of perfume will most certainly be guilty of a criminal offence if the Bill becomes law in its present form. This is an extremely serious matter. I do not see how the guidance that is issued to the police will overcome the problem. We cannot pass a law which says that someone is definitely guilty of an offence without a defence and then advise the police not to enforce it. I ask my hon. Friend to comment specifically on that. Secondly, he has not covered my point about acting without reasonable excuse.

Mr. Shaw: That is a helpful observation. We do not want to make it impossible for a person to carry a container which has a legitimate purpose. However, containers can be misused. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Malins: We should try as hard as we can not to have absolute offences. They are obnoxious. The House always makes every effort, when legislating, not to create absolute offences, but to legislate for the guilty mind, or mens rea. The amendment provides for mens rea and suggests a better form of offence. We should do everything possible to avoid absolute offences.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I distrust what he said about there being certain circumstances in which it might be necessary to ameliorate the rigour of the law by guidance. He is saying that we are about to introduce a criminal offence, but that if we find it is oppressive someone will whisper to a police officer that it should not be enforced too strictly. I am against that.
Hon. Members have given examples, some of them flippant, of articles which could be described as a "controlled container". Because we have proceeded to the Committee stage so soon, we have not exhausted the range of articles which will fall within that definition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) mentioned the bucket at the side of a pitch. I suspect that articles in an ambulance would fall within the definition of a "controlled container", but they will not be saved by the provision in subsection (3), which refers to "medicinal" products within the meaning of the Act. I suspect that some containers which we want to be within a ground will be caught by the Bill. I understood the Minister to say that he was prepared to look again at the definition of a controlled container. If he is giving such an undertaking, I should be pleased to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We have to ensure that we secure the main objective, which is to prevent people from entering a ground in possession of alcoholic drink in containers which, if misused, could cause injury and thus become offensive weapons. Some containers made of light plastic, such as a lady's scent bottle, might come into that category, although a plastic bottle is likely to be less injurious than a metal bottle. The point made by my hon. Friend is that we need to clarify what is meant by an offensive container. I shall examine that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): We now come to amendment No. 9, with which it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 10, 11, 18, 22, 29 and 31.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not wish to speak to amendment No. 9 as it deals with ground that the Committee has already covered.

The Chairman: If amendment No. 9 is not moved, the other amendments fall.

Mr. Denis Howell: So that we may debate amendment No. 22, I will move amendment No. 9 formally.
Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'time' to 'when' in line 22. — [Mr. Denis Howell.]

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 2, line 21, after 'time', insert
'up to one hour before or one hour after or'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 23, leave out `the' and insert 'an'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 29, after 'time', insert
'up to one hour before or one hour after or'.
No. 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Where any part of the premises from which designated sports events at the designated sports grounds are concerned, it shall be a condition of the licence that intoxicating liquor shall not be sold or consumed from a period within 30 minutes of the commencement of the sporting event and until 30 minutes after its conclusion.'.
No. 29, in clause 6, page 6, line 16, after 'time', insert
'up to one hour before or one hour after or'.
No. 31, in clause 7, page 6, line 26, after 'time', insert
'up to one hour before or one hour after or'.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I think that I can be almost as economical and helpful as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I put down my amendments without having studied sufficiently carefully the later interpretation clause in which the Government have made


it clear that they would expect the event in question to cover a period of two hours before as well as two hours after play. If the Government are satisfied that that period is sufficient to cover the bringing of alcohol in to a ground I shall not press those amendments.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The arrangement in the Scottish legislation was for one hour before and one hour after play. That is why it is in this Bill. There is no other reason. If my hon. Friend believes that the period should be longer than one hour, I shall be happy to listen to his reasoning.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Clause 9(4) states:
The period of a designated sporting event is the period beginning two hours before the start of the event".

Mr. Pendry: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 22, as I know that other hon. Members also wish to speak to it and as I raised many of the points that it covers on Second Reading.
As the Committee stage unfolds it is becoming clear that those of us who argued for more time to consider these matters — especially for the Government — were right. I suspect that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are now kicking themselves for having agreed with the Government as much as they did.
The Government really must yield on amendment No. 22. It is an all-party amendment in the names of Members who are genuinely concerned with soccer and know something about its problems. Even now, the Minister seems not to appreciate the impact that the Bill will have on clubs. They need the corporate market as much as the money from the turnstiles. They need to cater for members on the terraces as well as for the corporate market, but the one helps the other and they need both to improve the facilities at grounds. The Minister will be held responsible for altering the structure of football with this blunt instrument in a way that those of us who in another context are arguing for verticalisation or rationalisation of the structure of football greatly regret, because it means that some of the best clubs will go to the wall as a result of the Bill while others which perhaps do not deserve to remain in existence may survive.
The basic premise of the amendment is that little alcohol is consumed at football grounds. The three matches that led to the introduction of this legislation were played at football grounds where alcohol is banned. Although the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) represents the Police Federation of England and Wales, I do not believe that he is arguing the case that the police in charge of football grounds would argue. They would prefer drinking to take place in football grounds so that they can take corrective action if they see that people are getting drunk.
We must be even-handed and ensure that this does not become a class problem. The Minister of State may introduce a new element of hooliganism if he is not evenhanded. It is no use for the Minister to ask football clubs to put their house in order. He made the ridiculous suggestion that private boxes should be turned round to face the other way. This would involve football clubs in additional expense. He must face the fact that he is barking up the wrong tree.
Football clubs need their executive boxes to provide the revenue for the one hundred and one things that the clubs are being asked to do. The 19 clubs with executive boxes, and other clubs, are doing all that the Government are

asking them to do. They are providing closed circuit television, computers and better policing, security and safety precautions. The Government must not underestimate what football is doing. During the last few years it has not been blind to what has been going on and it is doing something about it. If the Minister follows the game, as some hon. Members do, he will know that a new kind of leadership is developing which is adopting a much more constructive approach to the game.
The amendment attempts to be even-handed. It recognises that the consumption of alcohol at football grounds is not a major problem, yet it attempts to meet the Government more than halfway by providing that when a game is in progress, as well as half an hour before and half an hour afterwards, the ground will be dry. Clubs will still have sponsorship and executive boxes. They would not be able to operate in the same way but they would still be able to gain revenue.
The amendment is a compromise. It meets many of the Government's points, but it also deals with the problems that face football clubs. The needs of the 19 football clubs, which generate through these activities over £4 million, will not be met by the Government. They have turned their back on helping football. They will not allow part of the money that is generated by football — for example, football pools — to be ploughed back into the game. They must be fair to football, and this is a way in which the Government can be fair.
I accept that the amendment will pose a problem for the Government. The designated sporting event will have to be redefined to include half an hour before and half an hour after the game. That is not impossible. An amendment could be moved to that effect in another place. The amendment would introduce equity, a point that has been mentioned a number of times, and would ensure that the football world recognises that the Government have listened to the points that have been made and that they are prepared to be flexible and to make adjustments. We should examine how, with an amended Bill, the requirements of the Government, the football world and the general public can be met.

Mr. Lester: I do not know whether this is the right time to debate general principles. The development of sponsored boxes has not changed the fact that most football clubs do not have public facilities for drinking. We are not changing the class structure, which means that the punter cannot drink but the person in the box can, as that has been the case ever since the boxes have been built.

The Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's comments might not be more relevant to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Lester: I shall endeavour to catch your eye on the next group of amendments, if that is your guidance, Mr. Walker.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am sorry to disappoint you, Mr Walker, but I need to speak on this group of amendments. The Government are attempting to obtain equity as between the consumption of liquor in private boxes and in bars around the ground, but they have done so in a way which could impose heavy fines on football clubs.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and some


Conservative members think that they can meet the Government's desire for equity, which we share, by other means. The ingenious means proposed is the application of licensing laws and times to football grounds. I cannot see why the Government are being so obstinate about such a proposition.
The police and everyone else have experience of the known times under licensing laws beyond which it is illegal to buy or consume drink. The police operate that law throughout the country in thousands of public houses and private clubs. It is beyond me why we should not apply the same logic to football clubs. Moreover, it gets us off the hook by achieving equity by a means which is not financially ruinous. I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed that.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that people who want to drink can go behind the box to a place out of sight of the terraces. We are talking about boxes in which three-course meals might be served before a match because Imperial Chemical Industries, for example, wants to entertain guests with a reasonable meal. A Home Office Minister constantly invites me to go to Fulham football club and to enjoy such a meal with him. I am very grateful to him. I have not yet been able to take up his very kind and generous offer, but it is the normal way in which hospitality is provided in these boxes.
If the Minister is right — he obviously thought it was far-fetched, but, applying his own logic it is not — I would first have soup. If I then wanted white wine to go with the fish course, I would have to jump up, leave the box, nip behind and have my glass of white wine out of sight and return for the fish course. When I had finished the fish course, which I would have to eat without drinking wine, I would have to go through the same procedure for the main course; go out again to get a glass of red wine before having the beef or the lamb. This is absurd.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Not a glass.

Mr. Howell: "Not a glass," says the hon. Gentleman. It is worse if I have to drink red wine out of a cardboard carton. Such a wretched proposition I would have thought not even this Minister would put before the Committee.

Mr. Lester: Would not things be more acute if we both went to the match after the meal and the right hon. Member chose to drink whisky and I chose to drink dry ginger? He would have to go behind the screen and drink his whisky, whereas I could drink my dry ginger and watch the match.

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman could, subject to what the Minister tells me. If the hon. Gentleman is right, because he is having a non-alcoholic drink—

Mr. Ewing: In a container.

Mr. Howell: It would have to be in a container which was not likely to be injurious or broken. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is absolute nonsense.
Ninety-nine per cent. of people going to football matches are not going to be involved in the drink problem. We all agree that the drink problem occurs outside, not inside, grounds. It is outrageous to impose these absurdities on decent people who want an afternoon out at

a football match and to enjoy a drink and a meal while they are doing it. That is the first of the Minister's gaffs, and I urge him to think again about it.
We want equity. There should be no difference between the working man on the terrace having his half pint with his pie and people in boxes having wine with their meals. They should be treated with equity, but we must do it in a way which does not affect the revenue of the organisation we are trying to protect. We may find it difficult to get a cure for the disease, but that is no reason to kill off the patient. The Government are doing something akin to saying to a gentleman, "You are overweight. We want you to slim, but as you are having difficulty, we will amputate your leg in order to get you down to the right size." That is the solution that the Government seem to be producing.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Am I to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying — which admittedly is in relation to an amendment about time — that he is asking for a review of the provisions in this Bill in so far as they affect private boxes? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the measure currently being debated has been brought forward after discussion with the right hon. Gentleman and his and right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and representatives of other parties as an agreed measure. He will be further aware that in the discussion apropos the part dealing with this particular issue — the provision of private boxes — it was a matter of real concern to his right hon. Friend the member for Gorton that the matter be dealt with in the way that it is currently before the Committee.

Mr. Howell: The Minister of State was not present, but he will know that when we took part in discussions with the Home Secretary we urged him to deal with the problem as proposed in the amendment. The Minister of State is right to point out that we urged the Home Secretary to make sure that there was equity. We said that there should not be discrimination between the man sitting in the sponsor's box and the man on the terrace. There would be incitement if someone on the terrace who was not allowed to drink could look into a box and see people drinking. That would be provocative.

The Chairman: Order. I do not want to restrict the right hon. Gentleman in any way on this point, but I must remind him that the amendments before us deal with time and that they are to be followed by a group of amendments that deal with private enclosures and boxes. He ought not to anticipate the debate on the next group of amendments but should confine his remarks to the amendments that are before the Committee.

Mr. Howell: I am in a little difficulty, because I have to respond to what the Minister of State has fairly put. I am not complaining about him referring to private discussions that have gone on between the two sides. I am trying to explain how the matter arose. We all want equity on the basis that it does not penalise clubs financially.
Even though I have been party to an agreement with the Minister — an agreement that was reached before the matter came before the Committee — I would not be so presumptuous as to stick to that agreement, ignoring completely anything that might be said in the Chamber that should cause us to think again. That is the rather arrogant attitude that is now being taken by the Minister. I hope the same attitude is not taken on this side of the Committee. If it were, I would condemn it equally.
There is no point in having a Parliament unless the Government are prepared to listen to what is put to them and to say, "That is a convincing argument. We should consider it." Even though I have reached agreement with the Minister, it would be presumptuous of me, having heard other arguments from the football authorities and from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, to say that I will not move one iota from the position that we took up seven days ago.
Earlier, when many of us suggested that we needed a levy board, the Minister said that the football authorities could set up a levy board if they wished to do so. This is only a small point, but it needs to be corrected. As the Horserace Betting Levy Board is a statutory body, the same would have to apply to football—

The Chairman: Order. Whatever the merits or demerits of that argument, I hope we will not get into it on this group of amendments.

Mr. Howell: I promise not to repeat on the next group of amendments what I have just said, but I hope that we can then have answers to these questions if we cannot have them now. They are fundamental to the good will we want from everybody if the Bill is to succeed.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is concerned with the arguments that he touched on during the Second Reading debate about the relaxation of controls in the Bill on the sale and supply of alcohol to occupants of boxes and restaurants. This is primarily the purpose for which the hon. Gentleman is moving the amendment.
I still do not accept that it would be right to do this. I must maintain again that where a club has been granted an exemption order in appropriate terms it would still be possible for box occupants and anyone else to have drinks in areas that are out of sight of the pitch. That is a reasonable facility in view of the arguments that have been advanced in other quarters for a total and absolute ban. The biggest single difference, as I think the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will concede, between the 1980 provisions affecting Scottish grounds and those currently before the Committee is the exemption procedure.
12.45 am
I realise that in the amendment the hon. Gentleman is referring to the suggestion that a licensing procedure be introduced on a time scale, so that instead of the designation of a sporting event being two hours prior and one hour after — and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) for confusing the issue and saying two and two — he is seeking to reduce it to half an hour prior and half an hour after. The reason for which he is doing that is primarily to enable the provision of entertainment and facilities in sponsored boxes to continue for a futher period of time, and also, in consequence, to allow alcohol to be provided in other parts of the ground for a longer period before the designated restriction would apply.
In seeking to deal with alcohol as an element in the problem affecting crowd behaviour within sports stadiums, we are minded to follow the Scottish Act. It is that Act, its availability on the statute book for some five years which has enabled the Government, with the agreement of the Opposition parties, to bring the measure before the House in a short time.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) raised a separate point. What he was seeking to do in discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was to argue that this should be part of the agreed legislation to come before the House. I am not aware that that was the case in the discussion that took place. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was not a party to the discussion, but I have consulted my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and it is his view that the provision of the principle that there should be a reduction in the time to enable, as it were, a licensing system to apply, should not apply to the Bill. I would go further than that. There was —[Interruption.]

Mr. Denis Howell: I shall not tolerate that kind of behaviour from the Home Secretary. It is outrageous that he should attempt to shut me up.

Mr. Shaw: What I am concerned about is that we would be seeking to depart from the principles of what was an agreed piece of legislation. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members and my hon. Friends have tabled an amendment relating to boxes and their designation. My answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on this proposition is that in all conscience I cannot square it with the determination to reduce the provision of alcohol within designated sports stadiums at designated sporting events, because that would be the effect of the time reduction that he proposes. As he knows, this is major provision in the Bill and it is a matter which would affect not just the private box provision. A limited number of clubs, albeit first division and perhaps some second division clubs, enjoy a substantial income from this source.
If a way could be found of ensuring that income would not be significantly reduced I should be glad to hear about it, provided that it was consitent with the principles of the Bill which we have so assiduously sought to discuss and agree with all parties in the House in relation to England and Wales. That is the problem that I have at this juncture, and if the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde presses the amendment to a Division, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to prolong the difficulty which has arisen, but the Home Secretary obviously advised the Minister of State how to reply on a matter which arose in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, and he is wrong. That being so, I object to the right hon. and learned Gentleman waving me down and virtually saying that I should keep quiet. I did not introduce the subject of our discussions. It was introduced — I made no complaint about it — by the Minister of State in response to a point that I had made.
At the first meeting, when I was present, we asked the Home Secretary to take away and consider what is now amendment No. 22. That is what I said. I know that at a subsequent meeting when I was not present my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Home Secretary reached agreement. That is what I said, and I am not complaining about it. But I went on to say that, in view of the fact that we had had representations from the football authorities and hon. Members on both sides of the House, it would be churlish in the extreme if a possible way out of this dilemma were not taken on board because agreement had been reached between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Brittan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: I do not know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. I am sure that he does not want to appear to be saying to the Committee, "We don't care tuppence about anything that any hon. Member says, because the two Front Benches have reached an agreement." That is the effect of what the Home Secretary is doing, and I for one disapprove of it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is a long-standing and very good tradition of the House that when hon. Members refer to documents that have not been laid before the House of Commons, they are normally expected to do so.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and possibly my hon. Friend the Minister of State are referring to some discussions that are outwith the knowledge of the Committee. I know that this happens and that it is necessary for the orderly conduct of the business of Parliament that it should happen. I do not complain about it, but I find it tedious and unparliamentary that there should be argument back and forth between the two Front Benches about who said what in private discussions that are no part of the Committee's business. I object to it. But if the Home Secretary says that the amendment now being debated was not part of those discussions, I, and I am sure the whole Committee, will accept what he says.

Mr. Pendry: I found, as I hope other right hon. and hon. Members did, that the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory. I do not really care whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) or the Home Secretary is right. What is clear is that a cosy deal was made to which the rest of us were not party, and perhaps this is the time when we should all protest. This is an all-party amendment. It was tabled genuinely, in ignorance of what was going on between the two Front Benches, as a way forward out of a difficulty.
I believe that the wording of the Scottish Act, which of course comes into this proposed legislation, is one of the reasons why we are getting into difficulty. When discussing this legislation, any comparison between the two countries is quite erroneous. The position in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales.
Since the Minister's reply was very disappointing and since it appears that even the cosy deal which was or was not made is causing friction between the two Front Benches, I urge Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Committee to see the validity of the case put forward and to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Pike: There is one other matter at which I hope the Minister will look again. There is some doubt about the meaning of the present drafting, and in my view amendment No. 22 would make some improvement. A later part of the Bill refers to the sale of alcohol being consumed an hour after the advertised time of the end of the match; but the amendment, which states half an hour after the conclusion of the event, is far clearer. Matches do not always finish on time. The start can be delayed. Therefore, problems could arise from the present wording.
For the many reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), I hope that the Minister will agree to consider the matter further. If he is not prepared to do that, I shall Śupport the amendment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understood the Minister to say that while he could not give a formal undertaking to reconsider that particular provision, he was receptive to representations designed to protect the income of the clubs, at present derived from executive boxes, provided that it would not damage the Bill's main purpose. Although I put my name to amendment No. 23, which has considerable force, I should be content if the Minister made it clear that he would be receptive to representations from the industry and would try to meet its wishes, provided they did not prejudice the main purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Giles Shaw: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to clarify the matter. When I commented on the amendment, I said that I understood the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the threat to the income from sponsored boxes at clubs. However, I pointed out that a later amendment related to that specifically, whereas this amendment referred to the designated time of the sporting event. I regard this as a separate and broader issue. I am not persuaded that I should do anything other than advise the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Pendry: I am not entirely persuaded, but I can see from nods from my colleagues that there may be more hope in not pushing this amendment and awaiting the outcome of amendment No. 23 than by dividing on it. On that basis, and showing the sort of flexibility that I am asking the Government to show, I shall not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'ground' to 'or'.

The Chairman: I understand that it is desired not to proceed with amendment No. 15, so with amendment No. 12 it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 13, in page 2, line 23, after 'viewed', insert
'unless that area forms a completely separate and closed section of the ground where direct contact with those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event'.
No. 23, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, at end insert
'unless that area forms a completely separate and closed section of the ground where direct contact with those spectators in the external viewing area is impossible for the duration of the event.'

Sir Eldon Griffiths: This is a fundamental amendment, as it touches on the entire mischief of the Bill, which is that we are seeking to ban alcohol at football matches, except in that part of the football ground from which the football match cannot be seen. If one cannot see the pitch, one may obtain alcohol and drink it there. I am unable to understand the logic of a Bill which seeks to ban alcohol at football grounds, but not in areas from which one cannot see the pitch.
Without getting into the broad area of principle, I shall put some practical considerations. Does the whole pitch have to be excluded from vision from the area where it will be permissible to serve, possess and drink alcohol? What happens if one can see a bit of the pitch — say, the corner flag or the goal mouth at one end? I have been to many grounds where, from the bar, the view of the pitch is almost entirely excluded, but a bit of it can be seen. I


suppose that the Government intend the provision to mean that the totality of the pitch should not be visible. It is important to make that clear.
1 am
Enforcement is the problem. If one goes round the back of the stand, one will be able to buy drink in areas where the magistrates courts have agreed that an exemption should apply. A number of young fans will be apt to obtain liquor, get themselves charged up and then, when excited by the drink that they have obtained from the bar at the back of the stand from which they cannot see the pitch, indulge in exactly the kind of behaviour that has caused the problem. I cannot understand why the Government have taken the view that people should be able to continue to buy, drink and possess liquor, provided they do that out of sight of the ground, but not he able to do so within sight of the pitch.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Should a person get drink from behind the stand and then indulge in violent behaviour, that would be one sure way of guaranteeing that an exemption would not be granted again.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I appreciate that, and I take it that in the first instance the magistrates will not lightly grant an exemption if they have reason to believe that it will be abused. I have confidence in the good sense of magistrates. Nevertheless, exemptions will be granted and there will be occasions when young people going round the back of stands will be able to obtain liquor and, however much the hon. Gentleman may hope otherwise, as I do, there will be occasions when that will spark off the violence with which we are seeking to deal.
The hon. Gentleman goes on to say that, if that happens, the club will not get a licence a second time. We want to deal with the problem now, not say that there will be another means of dealing with it should it recur. The Bill should be clear and say, "There shall not be alcohol at sports grounds, no matter where it is served." That would be logical, comprehensible and enforceable. I question the enforceability of a measure which says, "You can go round the back of the stand and get drink, but if you come in front of the stand, you are in trouble." I do not see how the police will be able to operate such a provision. The amendment would simplify matters by avoiding a distinction between those areas from which one cannot see the pitch and where one can get drink and those areas from which one can see the pitch and where one cannot get drink.

Mr. Pendry: As the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) permitted me to deal with the last amendment and himself refrained from commenting, on this occasion I shall remain silent and allow him make the running.

Mr. Lester: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) should accept that those who have been going to football matches for the last 20 years recognise that the Home Secretary has allowed the vast majority of clubs that have been operating in a perfectly civilised manner to continue to do so.
Because it is not sensible to have a public bar, as there is not enough trade at the interval, most clubs do not have a public bar. They have supporters' clubs, which are important to the future of football. It is an important element of football that after the match, people go to the

supporters' club, meet the players, talk together and feel part of the team. Equally, we have members' bars where people who support the club financially have a bar which is away from the sight of the game. These bars are useful, before and after the game, and such a bar can get an exemption.
I agree that there is the anomaly of whether one can see the game. The problem of introducing this new concept based on the Scottish Act is that, since the law was passed in Scotland, sponsored boxes with a sight of the game have been created in an effort to develop football in the United Kingdom. They do not exist in Scotland. This is a new feature to help football raise its standards and income and to find money for improvements, which we all support. Therefore, I support amendment No. 23.
My objection is that the law as it stands does not recognise this change. There is no significant difference in terms of equity. At the vast majority of clubs, as I have said, the punter cannot get a drink in the public bar because public bars are not available, but people in private boxes can have a drink. The anomaly will arise because this change in the law will be unenforceable.
It seems funny that, if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I were watching the same match, under the existing law, as I understand what the Home Secretary said on Second reading, if I drank a dry ginger out of a soft container I could sit at the front of the box and watch the match, but if he drank whisky he would have to go and stand behind the screen. I do not envisage that that will create any problem for the punter looking up at the box because, if I have a glass in my hand, he will not know whether it is dry ginger or whisky. It is unenforceable unless the police come and smell what I am drinking and say, if it has spirit in it, that I am guilty of an offence but, if it has not, that I am not guilty of an offence.
The amendment appears not to recognise that the English situation is different from the Scottish. It does not require the contribution to football and the raising of standards that the executive or sponsored boxes have created or that this is a class matter. Most of the boxes of which I know are taken by local industrialists in an effort to support their club. The boxes are available to the members of their firms, and not only to the directors but the trade unionists. They use them on the same basis that one sits in one's private house.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Bill does not threaten the existence of executive boxes. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, unless drink can be served in executive boxes, people will not pay what are very large sums to use them. I think that does not necessarily follow, the amount of money that clubs derive from the sale of alcohol in the grounds is relatively small. The money is derived from the rent paid for executive boxes.

Mr. Lester: It is not reasonable to expect people who come to a box as guests to be told that they are all right as long as they drink lemonade. One says that there is a refrigerator which has a range of drinks.
Reference has been made to boxes which seek to serve meals. It is anomalous and unnecessary to say that if I go to a cricket match I can have a meal, watch the cricket and drink wine with it, but that if I go to a football match, if I want to drink wine I have to stand behind a screen. We are trying to stop the influence of alcohol on people who


cause offence in football grounds. I know of no case in which a person has got blind drunk in an executive box and gone downstairs and thumped somebody. This is overkill to a degree that will make the law appear ridiculous. If we do this, we will defeat the object of all hon. Members, which is to clean up football, make it a decent family game and stop the influence of alcohol outside the ground—everybody knows that this is what really causes the problem — with the resultant damage and problems which we are now debating.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, help me? As I understand it, the Goverment are insisting that drink in the executive boxes should be out of sight of the rest of the spectators because there would be fury and discontent if many people who were denied the opportunity to have a drink could see others sitting in boxes having a drink. The Government have accepted that, and it is the gravamen of making it out of sight of the pitch. What it really means is out of sight to the spectators—that is to acknowledge that there is an inequity.
If the law were to say—as my hon. Friend wishes—that it is right for the executive box to have the liquor, and then a group of people feeling angry about that literally make siege of the box demanding the liquor, what would the police do? Would they defend the privilege of the executive box with its liquor against those demanding to have it?

Mr. Lester: It is not an offence to sit at the front of the box and drink dry ginger. If someone was sitting with a glass in his hand, I would not know what was in the glass. It is not the act of sitting in the front of the box and drinking that is the offence, it is what is in the glass. No one knows unless the police smell every glass that they can see. It is not an offence to have a soft drink in the glass.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is an offence if it is visible.

Mr. Lester: No, it is not an offence to be drinking a soft drink. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that. That is why it is an anomaly. The existing position has never caused a problem. I have never seen any problem at any match that I have attended where those on the terraces have objected to what they might or might not see in the sponsored boxes. It is an anomaly that needs to be rectified.

Mr. Ewing: I want to comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). It is right to put on record that when this provision was introduced in the Scottish legislation—I shall not bore hon. Members with the Scottish experience—it was to take account of the fairly large number of clubs in Scotland which have social clubs, perhaps not inside the grounds but in parts of car parks that they no longer require.
On Second Reading the Minister made an interesting remark when he said that Berwick Rangers would be covered by this legislation and not by the Scottish legislation. Berwick Rangers is located in England but plays in the Scottish league. It has one of the finest social clubs that I have seen throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is excellently run. However, it is hard up against the grandstand. There is no way that anyone in the club can see the play. If the amendment were accepted, because the club is adjacent to the ground, anyone could

be guilty of an offence, even if he was leaving the club to go home. That person might not want to go into the ground. I beg hon. Members not to underestimate the number of times that a man comes out of a social club and, instead of going to the football match, goes straight home. That is the purpose of the provision, and it is useful.
East Fife football club built new dressing rooms and converted the old dressing rooms—which are only an arm's length away from the touchline—into a social club. The whole of the side facing the playing fields was built up so that no one could see the ground. Again, because it is adjacent to the ground, anyone coming out of the club with a container or with alcohol would be guilty of an offence.
The provision in the Bill is valuable. Whatever the Government do about the executive boxes—I concede to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that we have not had to wrestle with that problem in Scotland—I wish them well, but I beg them to keep in the Bill the provision relating to social clubs, which are often built on ground not needed by clubs but put to good use.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) would have a major effect on the Bill, by creating a virtual ban at designated grounds during designated events. I can see the simplicity that he has in mind, and on Second Reading he made that case forcefully. However, it is necessary to have the arrangement as in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) spoke in favour of the provision, and I am of the opinion that it is necessary to retain it. Although it appears to be cumbersome, it is useful to have this provision. We are in the business of seeking to reduce the incidence of disorder. A total ban would be entirely appropriate. If there were wide availability, and disorder, it would not be easy to obtain an exemption the next time round.
I refer now to amendments Nos. 23 and 13, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I made oblique reference to the matter before, and it relates particularly to private sponsored boxes. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are aware of the substantial nature of the business that they generate. I said previously that it was of concern to the Government that action would be taken which might ultimately be to the detriment of the game itself. The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend is that, through the generation of income from those facilities, major amounts of money are being recycled to the benefit of the game. However, at the initiation of the discussion I made it clear that we started from the premise of the game being in such disorder and disrepute, because of the ghastly events that have taken place, that a rehabilitation process is what we are seeking to achieve. This measure is one contribution.
My hon. Friend's point is important. Estimates have been made by the Football League that the £4 million of revenue is significantly at risk—possibly as much as 75 per cent. of it. That has to be recognised as a substantial guess. The exemption procedure is the big difference between this measure and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. We do not know how effective it will be in allowing some consumption, and sponsorship and


commercial interest in still supporting the game, although not in the same character as hitherto. I have no great knowledge of the game, but my view is that, where clubs are faced with such a difficulty, it is remarkable how flexible they can be if they believe that significant amounts of money are at risk.
I have already got into some hot water with my hon. Friends in saying that there are ways in which it would be possible to allow facilities for drinking in sponsored boxes provided that they were out of sight of the pitch. That is the crucial distinction, which also applies under an exemption order to bars in other parts of the ground serving the terraces and so on. That is an important possibility, although I recognise that in many clubs the layout or size of the boxes may make partition difficult.
It may mean, for example, that some boxes at the Tottenham ground will have to be closed for bar purposes, whereas other boxes will be used for viewing purposes. I use this to illustrate the fact that I do not think it is unreasonable for the Government to say that the scale of the threat to the ability of clubs to generate sponsorship is not known, although it has been suggested that it is considerable.
It is right that we should look closely at the performance of this aspect of clubs' activities during the coming season. If it is the case that there is a major fall in the sponsorship income, to the detriment of the game, as has been suggested, it would be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider, in the vehicle of the public order legislation, whether an amendment might be carried which would have a beneficial effect on the problem.
It would not be reasonable for us to accept the argument now, when we do not know what the consequence will be. We shall not be able to carry out the provisions of the amendment, unless through an agreed procedure with those who have been generous with their consultation on the Bill. I could not unilaterally agree to the amendment on behalf of the Government.
Therefore, it is better that I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that we take note of the real problem that could appear if the worst fears of the league are shown to be correct, and the best way to do that is on the basis of hard evidence. It would be possible to make amendments through legislation at another time, if it could be shown that that was required.

Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman said that he would want to monitor the situation. What time does he need to come to an interim judgment, if not a final one?

Mr. Shaw: We are on the verge of the new football season, from the middle of August. It would be sensible if we saw the Bill in action over the most part of this coming season, or at least half of it. I understand that the season lasts for some 10 months. That might allow us, if we were so minded, and after discussion with those who are party to the decisions, to introduce amendments through other legislation. However, I cannot guarantee what the results of that monitoring will be. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that we shall monitor this because we recognise that if football were to be starved of funds for its improvement and rehabilitation, that would be a worry.

Mr. Lester: I was trying to make a serious point about the enforceability of the law. If it will not be illegal for people to sit at the front of a box and watch a football match and drink a soft drink, but it will be illegal for somebody to sit in the same position and drink a soft drink with whisky or gin in it, the principle of equity will be violated, leading to annoyance. It will be an anomaly if this law cannot be enforced. I hate law that is not enforcible. This is a salient and important point with which we have to deal tonight, otherwise we shall pass the law and have the problem.

Mr. Shaw: We are dealing with legislation the purpose of which is to restrict the sale and provision of alcohol at football grounds. I understand that non-alcoholic beverages will be freely available. I am concerned to ensure that the provision is passed in its present form, as it is likely to have a significant effect. If we start to widen exemptions to take account of the timing of a sporting event, the availability of alcohol will be increased in a crucial manner. In principle, that does not commend itself to me.

Mr. Pendry: I should like to know what the Minister of State is monitoring. I concede that he has introduced the first glimmer of a concession, but what will he be monitoring? There is no history of the problem.

Mr. Shaw: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will recall that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) expressed great concern over the fact that the revenue from boxes was of a magnitude unknown to him when he was involved in previous discussions. The figure of £4 million was unknown to me until recently. The threat of the reduction of revenue has been posed relatively recently, and it should be capable of being monitored during the next season.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister of State has made an acceptable response that goes far to achieving what we want. The monitoring exercise will ascertain the possible loss of revenue for the clubs.
It must be recognised that the leases of the boxes will not come to an end at one particular moment. Some leases will expire at the end of the coming season, some in August, some in 12 months' time and others in two years. Although the Minister has not accepted the laudable and intelligent approach of amendment No. 22, he is prepared to reconsider his position if the financial effects on the clubs so demand. I acknowledge that what he or his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary does will be the result of consultation with all those who are involved. It is important that we reach agreement while understanding the real problems. If it is possible to review events as they develop, when we consider the next measure that the Government intend to introduce on this issue—we hope that it will be placed before us later in the year—a considerable improvement will have been made to the Government's initial approach.

Mr. Pendry: Surely there cannot be a short period of monitoring. Many firms have already paid their money to a club for one, two or three seasons. There will be no real reduction in revenue in a short period. On reflection, the Government's monitoring exercise will be meaningless.

Mr. Howell: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, in the sense that only a few boxes will be up for negotiation now. There will be more in 12 months'


time and yet more in two years. However, the Government have moved slightly from their original position towards the approach that I advocate, and I welcome their response in that sense. It is important not to leave things where they are.

Mr. Hicks: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although monitoring applies to an existing situation, it does not apply when clubs are thinking about making new investment in executive boxes?

Mr. Howell: Yes, but I have less sympathy with that view because any club wanting to build a new box would comply with the new legislation. A club would build a fixed partition. I accept that anomalies exist, but we are trying to make a law work. Any club considering building a new box would be plain daft not to include a division so that wining and dining could take place in the back and viewing in the front.
Amendment No. 23 puts us in considerable difficulty. It distinguishes between different categories of people drinking at a football ground which I would find unacceptable.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: That is what we have now.

Mr. Howell: I know; but this is the reason for discussions and why the Government have tried to meet our objections. The Government recognise the need for equity in the arrangements at football grounds. Under amendment No. 23 people could drink in private boxes in view of the pitch, but not drink at a bar on the terrace in view of the pitch if they want a half pint with their pie. That is offensive to the principle of equity, and it might even be provocative. I do not argue with the Government's attitude to the amendment.

Mr. Pendry: It is amusing that my right hon. Friend should try to make out a logical case for the Bill. At grounds not far from here the man on the terrace can buy a drink at a bar round the corner from the pitch, whereas those who are trying to ensure that entrance fees are kept low by paying their share of £600,000 to keep a club in being cannot.
We are trying to ensure that football survives under this terrible Bill. I am surprised that we do not carry my right hon. Friend with us. In order to survive, clubs need the revenue to regenerate the game. There is no equity in the Bill. We are trying to ensure that money stays in the game So that clubs are able to make the many necessary improvements.

Mr. Lester: Hon. Members are trying to introduce equity where it does not exist. What about the man who consumes soft drinks at the front of the box and the provocation that might cause?

Mr. Howell: If the Bill is passed in its present form and someone has a soft drink at the front of the box, everyone will know that it is a soft drink because it could not be anything else. I do not think there is anything in that point.
Equity is extremely important. I am sorry that this difference has arisen, because I accept that the Government have sought to meet us on this matter. But in seeking equity as between the arrangements in private

boxes or directors' boxes and in the public bars on the terraces the Government have adopted an approach which puts in jeopardy a considerable amount of money. I wish to achieve equity in a different way, on a time basis, but it would be tedious to go over that again now. If people can drink in a box from which they can see the pitch but not in a bar from which they can see the pitch, that will be offensive to many people and may well be harmful. To their credit, the Government are trying to avoid that.
If we cannot carry the Government with us on the time argument at this stage, I believe that we should accept their offer to look at the matter again, to monitor it constantly and to come back to it when the new Bill is introduced. That is better than the position from which we started. It seems to be as far as we can take the Government at this stage, I recommend that we accept that. In any case, if my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) wished to press the matter to a Division, it would have been better to do so on amendment No. 22, albeit against the advice of the Opposition Front Bench, rather than on amendment No. 23. I advise my hon. Friends to accept the offer that is on the table, because it is the best that we are likely to get at this stage.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: This will be my last contribution on the Bill. As one who had a measure of responsibility for sport for about four and a half years, I find it immensely depressing to hear the proposition advanced that the future of our national game depends almost entirely on directors being able to drink in private boxes and that if they cannot do so all the great industries which have sponsored our national game — because, I had always assumed, they regard it as helpful to their advertising and sales—will withdraw their sponsorship and the game will collapse. I do not believe that the entire future of our national game turns on the revenue from drinks in the director's box. Despite all its problems, football is far more robust and resilient than that.
For the past hour or so we have heard about the problems of a few hundred or perhaps a few thousand directors and their pals—[Interruption.] The people who inhabit the directors' boxes—

Mr. Pendry: rose—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall not give way, as I want this to be my last contribution, but I shall allow any amendment to my choice of phrase that any hon. Member requires. My point is that we are dealing with the creature comforts of a comparatively small number of the football population. I am more concerned about the hundreds of thousands of fans on the terraces. It is their interests which should be occupying the House, not just the interests of a few hundred perhaps more important and influential and certainly better off people. The interests of the few should not be our principal concern.
What are we talking about? During the past hour we appear to have been talking about the problems that will be created for football if, for one reason or another, private boxes are unable to earn as much money in the future as they have been able to earn in the past, and as much as they hope to earn if there are more of them. I thought that the Bill was about something else—about tens of thousands of people having been knocked about and terrified on football terraces, the police having been bombarded with missiles, large numbers of people having been severely injured and the reputation of our country having been


severely damaged because drunken fans have behaved in a fashion that is the opposite of sportsmanship. However, the amendments appear to suggest that the real problem is that we are not dealing with directors' boxes in a proper way.
The amendment relates to a small, self-indulgent minority—

Mr. Lester: No.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Yes, I used that phrase intentionally. During the past few years they have failed to put football's house in order. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect the law-abiding majority of people who want to go to football matches with their families and not be set upon by drunken hooligans. I hope that the Government will make short shrift of the amendment and stick to the main issue, which is limiting the availability of alcohol at football grounds so that violence and national shame are not inflicted upon this country.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is here at a very late hour. I do not understand the division of the prohibition on alcohol between that which can be obtained out of sight of the ground and that which can be obtained in sight of the ground. The latter is to be prohibited, the former is not. Equally, I do understand the arrangement whereby if the directors' box is facing away from the pitch one can drink, but if it is facing towards the pitch one cannot drink. That is inequitable and unintelligible to the ordinary football fan, and it will be unenforceable.
My right hon. and learned Friend has promised that there will be an exercise to monitor whether private boxes suffer a reduction in revenue. I should like him to offer another semi-pledge to the Committee — that he will monitor the working of the Bill in the other direction and demonstrate that he is even handed. I hope that he will assure us that he will come back to Parliament and seek to amend this legislation if, as a result of booze still being freely available, albeit out of sight, at football grounds there is yet more rioting and violence and people are knocked about. There is as much danger of the legislation going wrong in that direction as there is of its going wrong in the other direction—the directors' box.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 6, at end add—
'(d) in the case of any offence, in addition to any other penalty, to be served with a prohibition order which shall prohibit that person for the duration of the period specified in that order from entering or attempting to enter a designated sports ground at any time during the period of a designated sporting event.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 3—Failure to comply with prohibition order—
'A person who fails to comply with a prohibition order under section 8, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.

Mr. Chope: My amendment and new clause introduce new and relevant penalties. Paragraph 4d of the resolution of the Council of Europe of 1984 recommended that member Governments should ensure, in so far as it is

legally possible, the exclusion of known trouble-makers from soccer grounds. The courts have no power to impose a general ban on hooligans. The best that they can do is to send people to an attendance centre or grant them bail on condition they they do not attend a football match. The same can also be made a condition of a probation order.
1.45 am
The idea that courts should be able to ban people from attending matches has been given to me by the chairman of Pompey football club—John Deacon. He says that he gets letters from people whom he has banned from the Pompey ground saying that they find it more of a penalty not to be able to watch Pompey again than to be in prison. I realise that many Saints supporters would say that it would be much worse for them to have to watch Pompey than to go to prison. The fact remains that many of the hooligans who get involved in trouble at football matches feel lost when they are unable to go to matches.
I accept that it would not be easy, in the absence of a membership card system, to decide whether someone had been banned, but if he appeared before the courts again and it was discovered that there was already a banning order against him, the penalty would be severe indeed. My new clause specifies a penalty for that offence.
A further benefit of such a penalty is that it can be imposed on the very young and it would protect people who visit soccer grounds. It is analogous to the protection that the courts give to road users by banning those who drink and drive from driving. Quite a lot of research has been done, and it shows that, in the past two years, about 1·5 million people did not attend soccer matches largely because of the threat from hooligans. The Government should pay attention to the need to exclude from grounds people who have caused trouble.
My proposals would not inconvenience good suppor-ters. I have recently seen the Sperry system of membership cards. It is a lot more practical than many people have suggested. I am pleased that Chelsea will embark on it, at least partly, next season.
If a national membership card system were introduced, people fear that there would be a blacklisting system without any form of legal redress. The amendment and new clause are designed to ensure that that blacklisting system can be brought in as part of the due process of law. If there were a system of national membership cards, anybody who found himself banned from designated grounds under this provision would not be able to go to those grounds and that would be clear from the national membership records. It is a sore point. I hope the Government will consider my arguments sympathetically.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I should like to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) by saying that we will do just that, because he has brought the Committee back to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to try to eliminate the cancer of hooliganism from the terraces of football grounds. It is beneficial that we should be dealing with this issue now in the new clause rather than in the somewhat more complex matter of what goes on in sponsored boxes.
The Government have considerable sympathy with the argument behind the amendment—that those convicted of offences of football hooliganism or football violence should be banned from attending matches. If football is to be re-created as a sport which families and respectable spectators can attend in safety and without fear, it needs


to rid itself of the small minority of so-called supporters who engage in violence and hooliganism. That is the purpose behind the membership card system which the Government have urged the football authorities to adopt. The aim is to provide a practical means of excluding known trouble-makers.
Until a membership card system is introduced there would be considerable difficulties in enforcing a system of prohibition orders such as my hon. Friend has suggested. In the context of the current Bill, it would be anomalous to confer on the courts power to impose a prohibition order linked to offences under this Bill. It would, I think, be unacceptable if such orders could be made in respect of offences of drunkenness and possession of alcohol but not in respect of offences of violence and criminal damage committed at football matches. If we are to give the courts power to order persons not to attend football matches, we need to extend the many offences, other than those in the Bill, which may be committed at football grounds or in connection with football matches. My hon. Friend will understand that. We also need to have in place a means of ensuring that prohibition orders can be adequately enforced, so that the law is not brought into disrepute. That also underlines the need for the introduction of a membership card system.
I hope my hon. Friend will not press his amendment today. As I said, it would be anomalous to introduce prohibition orders in relation to the offences in this Bill alone which deals entirely with alcohol and alcohol-related offences. We do have sympathy with the general argument he has advanced. If the clubs will do their part by bringing in a membership card system, that would provide a basis on which prohibition orders could be enforced. I have already referred to the introduction of legislation next Session, following our review of the law relating to public order. That legislation would be a more appropriate vehicle than the current Bill for introducing any power of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind across the whole range of football offences, but the football authorities would have to play their part in making enforcement both possible and effective.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the Committee to the importance that should be attached to ensuring that those who commit offences should no longer be able to enter football matches for the reasons I have stated. Because the Bill is narrow in relation to alcohol and alcohol-related offences and because it should also include other criminal offences and ordinary offences within the game, I believe it would be appropriate to look at this in another context and not in the context of this Bill.

Mr. Chope: In the light of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 7, line 39, leave out subsection (6).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

Mr. Hogg: The amendment seeks to exclude sporting events from the Bill. I have already put forward the arguments in favour. I know my hon. Friend's response. I am not seeking a further response.

Mr. Chope: I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 39. The notes on clauses say that clause 9 exempts amateur events from the Bill's provisions. Would that it did. That is the purpose of my amendment. Unfortunately, my reading of the Bill is that because there is an "and" rather than an "or", amateur events will not be excluded if there are no paying customers. The worst problems in football arise because of professionalism, not the sort of professionalism that is associated with the professions of medicine and the law, but professionalism in the context of the professional foul. It is appropriate that the Bill should be restricted to professional games played for money by people who are being remunerated, and that where games are played for charity purposes or by amateurs these provisions should not apply.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I am advised that in order to disapply the controls in the Bill from such events both the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 9(6) have to be met. The amendment to leave out "and" and insert "or" would weaken this, since only one of the conditions would then need to be met. This would considerably widen the scope of the exception, and that would not be desirable. If there is to be an exception it should be a narrow one, limited to an event in which all competitors are taking part otherwise than for reward and to which all spectators are admitted free of charge. That is why the clause has been drafted in this way, and I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend will accept it.

Mr. Chope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that although the notes on clauses say that clause 9 exempts amateur events from the Bill's provisions, it does not do so?

Mr. Giles Shaw: It does, if both those conditions are fulfilled.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We now come to Scotland.

Mr. Giles Shaw: A change of team.

Mr. Dewar: There is indeed a change of team, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stay for just a moment, because some of the things I have to say may have some relevance to discussions that I understand will take place in the immediate future about the problems of cross-border traffic, if I may use a familiar phrase from other areas.
On this side of the Committee we have consistently supported the legislation in part V of the Criminal Justice


(Scotland) Act 1980 and we will not go back on that during the passage of this Bill. I do not think anyone in Scotland pretends that it has in some way revolutionised the position in Scotland or is a talisman that will ward off all possibility of football violence. That would be ridiculous. However, we believe that in a modest way it has been useful and effective. Of course, it was to some extent based on work done by the Scottish Office during the term of the Labour Government.
Clause 10 will make a significant change in the Scottish legislation as we know it. I put this delicately, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that already some confusion has been caused in Scotland about its exact impact. There was a great deal of speculation in the press this morning about what would happen as a result of the introduction of this clause into the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. Therefore, it is appropriate to invite the Minister to clarify some points. I suspect that I shall be satisfied by what he says. Indeed, I may be urging him to stand his ground against those who may wish to shift him, but I should at least like to get this on the record in Hansard so that we know exactly where we stand.
There is a slight atmosphere of make do and mend about this. We have had a good deal of experience in Scotland. If there had not been legislation proposed for England, we might not have been altering the Scottish legislation at this point. We would probably have been content to leave it on the basis of the judgments that were made back in 1980 when the original legislation went on to the statute book.
2 am
There are occasions when there is a difference of pace in developments north and south of the border and different solutions may he appropriate. We are now harmonising and, to an extent, bringing the two together as the English come on to the statute book, but we are not, of course, creating exactly the same situation north and south of the border, that is an important fact to grasp. The Minister may wish to comment on that.
My remit is to make one or two points and to get the hon. Gentleman's views upon them. I have been listening to the debate and I was delighted to notice that one of the people speaking was a Member with whom I am not particularly familiar, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins). I was delighted to see in his little autobiography in the books of reference that one of his achievements is that he led "Running into Europe 1973", the longest-ever sponsored charity run to Brussels. I am not quite sure if that could be designated as a sporting event and exactly how it would be defined. I do not intend to invite to spend any time on that point.
The first change I want the Minister to look at is an important one. Clause 10(a) seeks to amend section 68(1) of the Scottish Act to make it clear that an order may apply to sporting events outside Great Britain. That is a situation in which, presumably, we are being invited to designate a specific sporting event. The Minister will remember that in the original legislation only sporting grounds were designated, so that is an extension right away of the Secretary of State's powers in Scotland. The concept of the event is being imported into the Scottish Bill for the first time.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was on the original Standing Committee in 1980, but I certainly was, and I remember the then

Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) going to great lengths to explain why it would not he appropriate to have designated an English ground—on the basis, obviously, that one could not extend the Secretary of State's remit south of the border. This created the anomaly that a bus coming from England bringing Celtic supporters from, for the sake of argument, Bradford, was immediately covered by the terms of part V of the Act when it crossed the border, but Celtic supporters going to the second leg somewhere in England could not be covered while they were driving in Scotland. That anomaly has now been ended.
If there is designation in Scotland, obviously that is simple enough because the journey to the ground is covered. If there is designation in England, then presumably a bus setting out from Scotland would be automatically covered for its entire journey even though part of it was in Scotland. Presumably if the Secretary of State designated a sporting event furth of the United Kingdom and the journey was started in Scotland, crossed the border and moved to England to, say, a channel port, the legislation would cover that form of transport throughout its passage in the United Kingdom. In other words, it would not just be a matter of travelling to the Scottish border, it would be to the port of exit in England. I hope that is the situation as I understand it, but perhaps it is as well to get that clear.
The second amendment or change that appears in clause 10 which I want to dwell on for just a moment, and it may be that one or two of my colleagues may wish to mention it, is the slightly more controversial matter of the extension to rail travel which results from this new clause. Under section 69 of the 1980 Act, the Government are simply and straightforwardly adding to the public service vehicle the concept of railway and passenger vehicle. Can the Minister say a word or two about that? It is probably the same as in England, but it is just as well to get it on the record for Scotland, as to what trains will be covered by this.
Obviously, section 69 of the 1980 Act deals with a train operated for the principal purpose of conveying passengers to or from a designated sporting event. It is obvious that the football specials run by British Rail are covered, if they are run; it has been the practice recently not to run them. But especially in circumstances where they are not run, if an ordinary service train is dominated by football supporters in its passenger load, would it be covered by section 69, as one with
the principal purpose of conveying passengers to or from a designated sporting event"?
If it would not, we should at least understand that, and I hope that the Minister will clear away that doubt.
I also notice that we have imported into section 69 the phrase
for the whole or part of a journey.
Again, I hope that the Minister will explain the significance of that, because it does not appear in the original legislation. The Minister looks a little puzzled. He will see that we are inserting in section 69, as well as
railway passenger vehicle", the words
for the whole or part of a journey.
Presumably those words are inserted for a purpose. They are changing the present position in Scotland, and I am not clear about their significance. Presumably it was thought necessary for clarification or it is a substantive change which applies not only to trains but to public service


vehicles as well. As some draftsman has taken the trouble to insert the phrase, perhaps the Minister will explain its importance.
Another important point arises which is perhaps the centre of the debate. It is what happens to the staff on a train. There was speculation in the press, which I believe was founded on a misunderstanding, that the staff of a train — the guard and the driver — would be in the same position as, say, the conductor or driver of a public service vehicle in that they would be covered by the offence defined in section 70 of the 1980 Act. Hon. Members will remember that that says that if an employee or agent
permits alcohol to be carried on the vehicle, the operator and, as the case may be, the employee or agent shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
During discussions on the 1980 Bill, there was a great deal of controversy about whether that was a reasonable duty to place upon the driver of a coach. In the event, it was decided that it was and there was a great deal of speculation that the same offence was being created for the staff of a train that might be carrying passengers principally to a designated sporting event or ground.
On reading the amendments and fitting them into the 1980 Act, it becomes clear that that is not the intention. As I understand it, the offence which applies to the staff of a public service vehicle under section 70 will not apply to the staff on a train which is covered by the newly amended section 69. If my interpretation is correct, I think that the Government have made a wise decision. There are great difficulties for the staff of a train which become apparent on thinking about their position.
I remind hon. Members of the debates in the Scottish Standing Committee which considered the Criminal Justice Bill on 19 June 1980. The then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said about bus drivers:
I should have thought that there was a difference between what would be likely to be the obligation of a driver at the beginning of a journey if he knew that alcohol was on the coach —when there would be a greater likelihood that he would be expected not to begin the journey until the alcohol had been removed — compared with the situation where during the course of the journey, it might become apparent that alcohol was being carried." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 19 June 1980; c. 1432–3.]
It is presumably easy for a bus driver to see what is being loaded on to his bus. In the age of open stations, a controversial matter within the railway industry — in Scotland open stations are almost universally used now —it is extremely difficult for the staff to monitor what goes on to a train. It is unreasonable to hold the driver, for example, per se responsible for what may be happening eight coaches behind him, when there is no barrier and there are a multiplicity of entrances and approaches to a passenger train. We can easily envise the problems of a guard who finds alcohol on a train which is moving rapidly through the countryside.
There are good and substantial reasons why the Scottish Office has decided that an offence similar to that outlined in section 70 should not apply to British Rail staff on one of these trains.
I realise that there will be substantial problems, in that a train often runs over the border. We then face the ludicrous anomalies and difficulties caused by the different approach of Home Office Ministers. I understand that that was freely recognised, thanks to an effective

intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) earlier today. We received some sort of assurance that the matter would be considered in the interim—presumably, before the Bill goes to another place.
I shall curtail my remarks—  [Interruption.] We are being patient, and the Irish are having to be even more patient.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are no Irish present.

Mr. Dewar: I do not wish to get into a semantic argument with the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the Government will note that in Scotland it is firmly believed that if the anomaly is to be overcome, it should not be by adopting the English approach. What is right for England is for the Home Office, its advisers and hon. Members with an interest in it. But it would be completely unsatisfactory to apply an offence similar to section 70 in Scotland to the staff of a train in the circumstances that I described. The English position is obviously different. They do not even have the statutory defence that appears in section 71 of the 1980 Act, under which the accused can establish that
the alcohol was carried on the vehicle without his consent or connivance and that he did all he reasonably could to prevent such carriage.
It would be unfortunate to import the English solution into Scotland in the interests of harmonisation. There is a strong case for consistency, but I urge that it should be achieved by a reconsideration of what has been suggested south of the border. If that is not possible, I hope that the Scottish Office will stand its ground.
I do not know whether the railway unions have been consulted on this matter. I have talked to Mr. Andrew Barr and NUR people in Scotland, who have not been consulted.
Perhaps that was not thought necessary because we in Scotland were not moving to a situation in which this penalty was being imposed on the staff. I hope that if the Minister is thinking of any move in the direction that the English have followed, consultation with the unions and other interested bodies, even in the short time that is available, will be considered essential.
On this occasion I pay the Minister an unusual compliment. He has had the better of the argument and I hope that he will stand his ground and make sure that we do not get carried away with an enthusiasm for harmonisation that might lead us to the wrong result.

Mr. Ewing: The Minister undertook on Second Reading that this whole issue would be reconsidered between now and the Bill going to another place. Either clause 1 or clause 10 will have to be amended, or the measure will be inoperable.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in urging Scottish Office Ministers to stand firm and to persuade the Home Secretary to amend clause 1 to bring it into line with clause 10. The Home Secretary should not entertain the thought of trying to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to amend clause 10 to bring it into line with clause 1.
I am glad that the Home Secretary is in his place, even at this late hour, although perhaps I should call it this early hour. When I was with the Post Office I never knew whether I was on the night shift or the early day shift, and I feel much the same about tonight's deliberations.
A train travelling from England into Scotland would be covered by the English legislation until it reached the bridge at Berwick-upon-Tweed. Once it was over the border and into Scotland, it would be covered by the Scottish legislation. Having begun its journey in England, staff operating what is described in clause 1 as "the vehicle" — although it is a train — would be held responsible if alcohol was on the train. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden pointed out, they would not even have the statutory defence contained in section 70 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. If, however, the train started its journey in Scotland, it would be a different proposition. Once it crossed the border into England, it would be covered by the English legislation. The position is intolerable.
It is wrong to try to impose on the staff of British Rail trains conditions that have been imposed successfully on coach drivers in Scotland. It is easier for the police to stop a coach going to a match in Scotland and search it to see if there is alcohol aboard, then to charge the driver, who, under section 70, can plead that he did not know that alcohol was on the coach, leaving it to the court to decide whether he did or did not know. If he is found guilty, in all probability he will lose his public service vehicle licence, and the owner of the coach will no doubt be reported to the traffic commissioners, who might remove his operating licence. It is relatively easy to impose that sanction.
It is wrong to impose the same principle on a train driver, who cannot be expected to know what is going on a dozen or 15 coaches behind him; or on a guard, who cannot be expected to know what is going on a dozen or 15 coaches ahead of him; or on a ticket inspector, who cannot be expected to know what is going on in all the coaches. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden that in this case the Home Office has it wrong and the Scottish Office has it absolutely right.
I support my hon. Friend in urging the Scottish Office to use all its powers to persuade Home Office Ministers that clause 1 should be amended. I am in favour of consistency. I am mindful also of a problem that prevails in England but not in Scotland. We have no grounds in Scotland in which there is direct access from train to ground, whereas in England a number of grounds, including Old Trafford in Manchester, have such access.
While I accept that that is a problem, I do not accept that clause 1 is the way to deal with it. I accept that clause 10 should stand part of the Bill. If the Committee agrees, I hope that the undertaking so generously given by the Minister of State on Second Reading means that clause 1 will be amended. I urge the Minister of State to stand firm on this matter. I must tell the Under-Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that Scottish Members will resist any attempt to import the conditions of clause 1 into clause 10.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his comments on part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 which reinforced what the hon. Member for Falkirk. East (Mr. Ewing) said on Second Reading. We all accept that part 5 has had wholly bi-partisan support in Scotland.
I deal first with the principal point of the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Falkirk, East—the relationship between clause 1 and clause 10. I am in a somewhat unusual situation. It is not every day that I listen to hon. Gentlemen telling the Committee that the Scottish Office has got things right.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the Committee, the Government accept that there is an awkwardness about the relationship between clause 1 and clause 10 on the question of cross-border traffic. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will, of course, be discussing the position. As the Committee will appreciate, they have been present during the debate. We will all take full account of the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Garscadden and for Falkirk, East.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Garscadden that his exposition of the position of the staff under the Bill as it stands is correct.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the trains to which the provisions would apply. The Bill will apply to football specials but not to normal scheduled services, which come under the railway byelaws. The hon. Gentleman asked also about the position of coaches going to matches in England and to designated events abroad. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State can designate events abroad which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, is new. Clause 1 makes it an offence to carry alcohol on a coach going to a designated event. Designated includes designated under part V of the 1980 Act, as the hon. Gentleman will observe if he refers to clause 9(3)(b). If a coach is going to a designated event abroad, it comes under the 1980 Act to the border, and under the provisions of the Bill for its journey through England and Wales.
On the specific question of the hon. Member for Garscadden, the words
for the whole or part of a journey
are intended to cope precisely with the situation of events designated outside Great Britain in order to be able to deal with that part of the journey within Great Britain.
With that explanation, I hope that hon. Members are content. I commend clause 10 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
This order, as its title suggests, is a miscellany of provisions affecting the functions of the 26 district councils in the Province. It began life in embryonic shape with about four articles, since when, like Topsy, it has grown and grown.
Many of the provisions in the order stem from proposals put forward by right hon. and hon. Members and by local elected representatives. For example, the wider powers to strengthen the ability of councils to secure adequate safety standards in places of entertainment are based on proposals formulated by a joint departmental-local government working group. The sex shop controls were promoted by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and also by district councils and community and church groups.
The published proposal for a draft order has been amended to include some additional provisions proposed by the district councils, the Northern Ireland Assembly and other interested parties. In view of the wide range of subjects covered by the order, it may be helpful if I now summarise briefly the main provisions.
Part II of the order deals with councils' powers to license places of entertainment and sex establishments. Schedule 1 contains the detailed arrangements for entertainment licences. At present a licence is required for public music, singing, dancing and boxing, but under the extended powers in the order a licence will also be needed for entertainment in private clubs, poolrooms, theatres, indoor circuses, amusement arcades with non-gaming machines and pop festivals. On the recommendation of the Assembly, snooker and darts tournaments have also been added and provision has been made to allow the Department to prescribe other sports in future. Copies of applications will be served on the police and the fire authority and councils will have a duty to take account of any recommendations those bodies may make.
The procedures for licensing sex shops in schedule 2 parallel the corresponding legislation in Great Britain. Councils will be able to refuse a licence on the ground that the appropriate number of sex establishments for a locality has been decided by the council to be nil.
Part III will give councils power to serve closing orders to prevent local residents being disturbed by take-away food shops and restaurants trading between midnight and 5 o'clock in the morning. I know that that provision was of particular concern to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), who corresponded with me about it on a number of occasions. Businesses in non-residential areas will be able to stay open all night to cater for lorry drivers, shift workers, and so on.
Part IV provides a legal basis for the grants, which up to now have been paid to councils on an extra-statutory basis, for serviced sites for travelling people. Article 10 contains simplified procedures for clearing unauthorised encampments. Those procedures will be available only to a council designated by the Department of the Environment as having provided adequate sites or being

in an area where no sites are needed. I make it clear, however, that part IV does not impose a duty on councils to clear unauthorised camps, nor does it derogate in any way from a landowner's power to take action.
Part V is additional to the published proposals, and has been included in response to widespread demand from the district councils and other organisations with an interest in local government. Article 12 allows councils to resolve to adopt controls over acupuncture, tattooing, ear-piercing or electrolysis. Councils will be able to register persons and premises engaged in those activities and to make byelaws to ensure the cleanliness of practitioners, premises, instruments and materials.
Part VI concerns a miscellaneous array of council functions. Article 17 will update the law on cremation to provide simpler procedures. Article 18 will remove any doubts as to a council's powers to remove graffiti and fly posters. That provision has now been extended to allow councils to recover costs. Articles 19 and 20 provide new sources of revenue by authorising councils to sell advertising space and spare computer capacity.
Part VII contains a number of amendments to the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. The most significant is article 28, which brings the law on surcharges into line with England. Under the new provisions a local government auditor, instead of making a surcharge himself, will have to apply to the courts for a declaration that an item of account is unlawful. Article 29, which would allow the Department to make regulations for the publication of accounts, has been added in response to representations, but councils will be consulted about any proposals for implementing it.
Article 31, which will enable councils to sell legal and managerial services to specified bodies, and article 33, which requires a requisitioned meeting to be held within two weeks, both result at least in part from Assembly recommendations. Article 34 repeals a wide range of provisions requiring departmental approval prior to council action. Article 39 widens the definition of "knacker's yard". That is an interim measure in the campaign against the sale of unfit meat. The revised definition will allow councils to control any place where "casualty" animals are killed or meat is processed.
Article 40 replaces the provisions on filling casual vacancies on councils which were formerly contained in articles 8 and 9 of the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977. Those provisions have now been included in this order instead of in the recent elections legislation since the Government are advised that, because they deal with the powers of district councils to fill casual vacancies by co-option, they are more appropriate to the local government code. Article 40 is largely a repetition of the former provisions in the order of 1977 except that co-option will not be available in future where a vacancy is due to the invalidation of an election by the courts. In that situation a new election will require to he held.
Article 41 implements another Assembly recommendation and will give Northern Ireland parity with the arrangements in section 56(9) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Under that arrangement the Department may, after consulting the councils, pay costs incurred by organisations such as the Public Service Training Board, the Local Authorities Management Services and Computer Committee and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards,


which supply services to local authorities. The total involved would then be deducted from the general grant paid to councils by central Government.
The order contains some useful new powers for councils and a number of other provisions which have been urged on us by, among others, right hon. and hon. Members. They should help ease the day-to-day administration of local services. I am confident that the order will be a welcome addition to local government legislation, and without reservation I commend it to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to the Minister for that careful synopsis of the order, and we welcome this addition to the legislation. However, the order is a perfect example of what the House discussed last week when we debated the interim period extension order to continue direct rule. First, we began this debate at 2.30 am. Anybody who directed his mind to the problem of running a Chinese laundry at that hour in the morning would be inviting bankruptcy, but that is the time that the Government think is appropriate to consider the affairs of Northern Ireland, and I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will be told that that is how their business is conducted.
The second consequence of direct rule is that legislation for Northern Ireland takes the form of unamendable orders. There is no equivalent of the Committee and Report stages which, in the case of legislation for other parts of the United Kingdom, enable hon. Members to propose and discuss amendments. Where the order deals with a single, broad proposal that may not matter so much. It is possible to debate whether the principle of the proposal is a good idea or a bad one. However, the order deals with a number of detailed proposals—what the Minister called a miscellany of provisions — each of which is capable of being considered separately. It is possible to approve of some, while disapproving of others, offering some qualified approval, conditional on a limited change, or the insertion of a safeguard. In those circumstances, it is unsatisfactory to present the House with a whole heap of proposals and say, "You can take the whole package or leave it, but you cannot amend it. You cannot take part without taking all, and you cannot seek to improve any of the proposals."
I do not lay that at the door of the hon. Gentleman or of the Northern Ireland Office, but I do not understand why, in the nature of things, the order should be unamendable. I see no inherent difficulty in inviting hon. Members to table amendments to subordinate legislation in the same way as we do to primary legislation. I cannot pursue the suggestion in this debate without trespassing on the rules of order, but I give notice that I shall return to this subject.
Article 5 empowers councils to impose closing orders on premises supplying meals and refreshments. This, as the Minister said, is to deal with the case when a cafe or take-away attracts customers at unsociable hours and makes life a misery for adjoining residents. Paragraph 4 provides that the hours specified shall not be earlier than midnight, or later than 5 am. I notice that Belfast city council in its written submissions to the Assembly, asked that the council should have the power to impose a closing order after 5 am, perhaps at 8 am. The Assembly endorsed that request, but the Government have rejected it.
If I lived next to an establishment such as that, I would find it hard to understand why the council should have no power to protect me from being awakened at 5 am. I understand that it is necessary to preserve a balance between the needs of residents and the needs of those who want to buy refreshment, but that depends essentially on local conditions. It is a matter which a council should have power to consider and decide upon. I do not see why a council should not even have power to consider the matter and assess that balance.
Article 21 empowers councils to erect bus shelters. That will no doubt be welcomed by many people who find them themselves waiting for buses in the depths of winter, and sometimes in the bleak early mornings. It is not clear why no central Government grant is made available to councils for that purpose. I understand that funds are provided through the Department of the Environment for direct works, but I do not see why the Northern Ireland Office should not take power to make grants more flexibly in suitable cases. It could still refuse a grant in its discretion if it considered that there was no good reason for making one. There is something to be said at least for taking the power to make such a grant.
We have all said from time to time that local authorities are not to be despised. It is frequently said that the Macrory proposals to remove certain service responsibilities from local counils and to vest them in authorities covering wider areas, or even the entire Province, were made on the assumption that delegated powers would continue to be exercised in Northern Ireland. It is one of the ironies of history that the legislation enacting the Macrory proposals was the last legislation enacted by Stormont before the introduction of direct rule. It is fashionable to remark that the consequence of that is that local councils are left with no powers worth exercising.
A glance at the order will teach us better. Local councils have a range of powers which are of great importance in the daily lives of pople in their locality. If they are exercised badly. They can lead to infected foods, epidemics, failure to ensure safety and an environment which offends the eye, the ear and moral sensitivity. If anyone was suspicious that those powers were being exercised unfairly or in a discriminatory manner, great resentment could be caused.
It is important that the standard of local councillors should be high and that councillors can work together in the public interest even when they may not agree about religious or cultural matters or about their political aspirations. The capacity of Northern Ireland to conduct its affairs through a democratic political system will be judged largely by the maturity shown by its local councillors.
If those who can agree about nothing else can share the powers set out in the order, with majorities demonstrating a sensitivity to the feelings of minorities, and minorities keeping in mind the distinction between asserting a point of view and fouling up the administration, we can urge on the Government that the time has come to consider returning fuller powers to that side of the water in some form. But if councillors cannot work together, cannot demonstrate evidence of tolerance or generosity and cannot make the powers in the order work in a democratic way, they will be reinforcing those who say that the present colonial style of government must continue


because the process of constitutional democracy cannot be made to work in Northern Ireland. That would render no service to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad to be able to take up the admirable speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I hope that he will not take it as in any patronising on my part if I say that his speeches as Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs have become closer to the apprehension of the affairs of Northern Ireland as it is held by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have listened to his recent speeches with great interest and considerable respect.
I sought to catch your eye at this early stage in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall speak for only a short time—to thank the Government and their business managers for providing the additional time for a debate on the order which had been requested by the Ulster unionist party. Part of the reason for that has already been referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West.
We would not wish it to be thought churlish or inconsiderate on our part if there is a less than full representation in the debate of the Ulster Unionist party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and others formed the view that on this day, and in these circumstances, their duty to their constituents and to the House was perhaps even better performed by assisting in upholding law and order in the Province than by taking part in the debate. Reports from the Province show that their judgment was well founded. I trust that the Government's generosity in acceding to our request will be available on a future occasion, even if we do not tonight exert the opportunity to the full of spending two and a half hours considering the order.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, two and a half hours within the scope available for discussing an Order in Council is not adequate to deal with the legislative problems which such an order presents. Only something resembling a Committee stage of a Bill would enable us to deal with the important items included in the order.
I followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument on that topic, but it seemed to lead him to the inevitable result that there is no substitute for legislation, and that we shall have to find means of legislating for Northern Ireland in the same way as we legislate for the rest of the United Kingdom, though preferably, and in the interests of all, at the same time.
However, in the meantime, so long as we have to use the Order in Council procedure, it should not be beyond the combined wit and good will of the Government, the Opposition and the Ulster Unionist party to devise some means of utilising the Northern Ireland Committee so that, in a more orderly fashion, we can make a closer approach to the benefits and advantages of the opportunity to consider the several provisions of a Bill separately and in circumstances in which it is still possible for the Government, without loss of face, to propose amendments.
I appreciate that the Government have been anxious to exhalt the functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There can be no dispute about the amount of work which the Committees of that body have put into the

consideration of Orders in Council, but there is one fatal flaw in any such consideration or in any such function of the Assembly. Since it does not possess powers, it does not have that means of exercising responsibility in debate and bringing the force of that debate to bear on the Government which is possessed by this House and its Committees.
I hope that the Government will heed what has been put forward by the Opposition as illustrative and instructive as to future legislative improvements and progress. My hon. Friends will deal with the several matters within the Order in Council, so far as that is practicable.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I support the order because it proposes to strengthen the powers of councils. Some of the proposals might appear to be a trifle mundane, but the order is welcome because it is an attempt by the Government to give a little more credibility to district councils and so enable them to justify their existence by accepting more responsibility in their civic duties.
Some of us would say that such additional powers might not be fully exercised because of the provocative presence of Sinn Fein in the council chambers. That presence is viewed as creating a situation for the disruption of council business, condoned by a Government who have not the courage to proscribe Sinn Fein and thus give potential murderers and terrorists a respectability that no other Government in the world would countenance. Now that councils will have to cope with the imposition of people who treat all forms of government with contempt, I trust that those members who are loyal to our position within the United Kingdom will combine together in every way to uphold the traditions of local government and to provide a full and complete service to the ratepayers of the Province within their areas of responsibility.
As a British subject living in part of the United Kingdom, I believe that we should always have the same cares and responsibilities together with the same benefits as our kith and kin on the mainland. It is with that in mind that I welcome the proposed new provisions which bring us into line with those in Great Britain. I refer to articles 23 and 24. Although not in themselves significant, they are significant with regard to the principles of automony for the future of local government in the Province.
The input of other bodies in the licensing of places of entertainment, sex establishments and closing orders in connection with premises supplying meals or refreshment is also to be welcomed, as is the strengthening of existing council provisions under articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 25 which take into account a wide spectrum of functions, including crematoria provisions, removal of graffiti, advertising on council land, spare capacity of computers, erection of bus shelters, delegation of functions to officers, mode of voting at council meetings and regulations as to burial grounds.
I am glad that in part II of the order the Government have appreciated the need to ensure that the highest safety regulations will apply to places of entertainment, that there is now a statutory obligation for councils to consult the fire authority about every application for a licence, that this is to be extended to private clubs offering entertainment and that the order is to be amended to include any sports that the Department may subsequently determine. I am also pleased that the Government have accepted the need to


ensure that persons applying for the grant, renewal or transfer of an entertainment licence are fully covered as regards public liability insurance. In my view, it is essential that such insurance policies cover all risks and that the policies are inspected to ensure that they comply with such conditions as are warranted.
With regard to schedule 2 and the licensing of sex establishments, such places have been defined as sex cinemas or sex shops. Concerning a proposed sex cinema compared with an established cinema registered under the Cinematograph Act 1909 and the Cinematograph Films Act 1957, it should be pointed out that under existing council powers a registered cinema can be prevented from showing a film which, in the opinion of the council, has sexual connotations causing offence to public decency, whereas presumably no such rules will apply to a licensed sex cinema. Such an anomaly could lead to accusations of discrimination from proprietors of registered cinemas who may believe that such films would attract larger adult audiences.
On the definition of sex shops, to the comment from the Assembly about paragraph 6 of schedule 2, that
it would appear that an opportunity has been missed to include control of striptease establishments and live sex shows,
the Government replied that the control of such establishments was a matter for the police under the laws regarding indecency. I would also include sex parlours and brothels in that category. Such places of sexual activity are known to be functioning almost openly in many parts of Belfast. There appears to be reticence by the law to take such action as is necessary to close those places. I am not suggesting for a moment that councils should seek powers to license such establishments, but care would have to be taken to ensure that the activities of sex shops were not extended to include other sexual services, such as I have just described.
As regards part III of the order, I am concerned about the number of what I call shebeens that are flourishing in certain parts of the city of Belfast. These are not licensed premises within the meaning of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Act 1971. There appears to be no restriction upon the number of hours that they can remain open. It is suggested that they provide an around-the-clock facility. The activities of some of the persons using those premises cause great offence to nearby residents, particularly in the early hours when these people are inebriated and full of Dutch courage. They roll about all over the place, mouthing obscenities and threats, and relieve themselves against the houses, doors and windows of nearby residents. Councils should be forceful and, after the investigation of complaints, use the closing order provisions against these premises. I am pleased to note that the councils will not reveal the names of those who lodge complaints against the keepers of these establishments. However, it is imperative for steps to be taken to protect confidentiality as there are some council members who believe that shebeens and drinking clubs should be supported.
Part IV of the order deals with the control that can be exercised by district councils over encampments of travelling people. I am completely opposed to grants, facilities or other provisions being made available to travelling people or gipsies. They have descended upon Northern Ireland like locusts and they desecrate everything that lies in their path. They leave behind dirt and filth that has to be cleared up and paid for by the taxpayers of

Northern Ireland. The free health service, the Government handouts and the comparative prosperity of the Province over the Republic of Ireland from whence they came is the reason for their presence. When there is so much poverty among our own people, I deplore the vast sums of money that a benign Government have lavished upon these parasites in our midst. The working party that was set up to advise on site provision for this army of marauding nomads would have been better employed devising ways and means to combat the deprivation that faces those solid Ulster citizens who have made their contribution to the Province throughout the whole of their working lives.
Let us consider the cost to the taxpayer of the Government pandering to these so-called unfortunates. A few years ago the council set up an encampment for them in Springfield, Belfast, despite the fact that the travelling people did not want and would not use it. It cost the Government £232,371. The camp was never used, and it was left derelict. No gipsy went near it. That ground is now being used for much needed housing.
The new proposals call for the expenditure of £778,000 on a site on the Monagh road that is close to the original encampment, but one hopes it is far enough away to ensure that the local population is not contaminated. Despite this expensive provision, I do not believe that it will be a success. It will be used only when it suits the gipsies. When they have wrecked it, they will move on, wherever their wandering feet take them.
I also object to the part that the local council is being forced to play. It is wrong that the running costs of such an expensive provision should fall upon the ratepayers of the Province. The Department of the Environment provides 100 per cent. of grant aid to district councils on the mainland to provide sites for gipsies, and the county councils provide the district councils with funds to run and manage them. We do not have county councils in Northern Ireland, so the Government should not push their commitment to the travelling people on to the local council, but should fund the operation completely. I am also opposed to local councils having to remove unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants. I would not object to councils removing them from council land, but my experience is that gipsies almost always park on Department of the Environment land, which is effectively Government land. The Government should also accept that responsibility as part of the package.
We get many excuses for unauthorised parking. I have experienced some in north Belfast. It was months before we could get gipsies to move from a site which was required for urgent housing. We had sickness, mechanical breakdowns, pregnant women—everything that could be dreamed up to frustrate the legal system.
I support the order and broadly agree with most aspects of it. The issues covered by it are not contentious. I am pleased that there is to be control of tattooing and ear-piercing. Too many novices are taking up ear-piercing. There is always a danger if cleanliness is not of a high order, so the measures in article 14 are welcome.
I agree with the miscellaneous functions of councils in the order. I approve of such steps and hope that more and meaningful powers will soon be conferred on district councils.

Mr. William Ross: Sir Patrick Macrory said long since that if he had known that Stormont


would be abolished he would not have made his proposals for the conduct of council affairs in Northern Ireland. It has taken an inordinately long time for the implications of that remark, and all that was done by the Macrory report and its acceptance, to seep through into action to get more power back down to the people.
I served on my local council for a long time. There was an enormous amount of frustration there. When I consider what has developed in Northern Ireland — the street groups and non-elected groups that act for the people—I conclude that they came into being simply because there was something badly wrong with the heart of our local government structure. Although I welcome the return of powers, minor though they are, in this order, much more than can possibly be covered in an order such as this must be done. The longer that job is put off, the greater are the difficulties for everyone concerned in the Province.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said, there is so much in the order that one could easily take twice two and a half hours and still not cover it in detail and get the changes that should be made. In regard to licensing laws, the change in the Irish public house in the past 15 or 20 years has not been gone into in sufficient depth. When I was a boy, and even as a young man, a public house in Northern Ireland was a place where one went for a drink, and quite often got very drunk. They have become places of mass entertainment, and the people who live in surrounding areas are now much worse off.
That is perhaps outside the scope of the order, but it is something that will have to be considered very soon. A step is being taken in the right direction in the order when one reads about the licensing of various types of entertainment. I note that the Government say that it is possible to extend the licensing requirements to other types of entertainment not listed in the order and that this will be done by order. May we be informed by the Minister exactly what the procedure will be? Will the order be debatable, or will it be one of those unfortunate instruments which go through the House so frequently without any debate?
Quite often measures such as this are slipped through the House, and we who represent the people of Northern Ireland feel that some discussion is needed on them. I should not like to think that these lists will be extended for several types of entertainment without a full debate and a thorough examination of what is being done to the community and to society in Northern Ireland in general. What will the procedure be?
I am not desperately clear about what is meant by "entertainment machines," but I suspect that they are the one-armed bandits which have inundated establishments in many parts of Northern Ireland, most of them illegal. All of them seem to swallow 10p pieces, especially when they are used by children, at a most alarming rate. Every Member of Parliament and every council in Northern Ireland is receiving complaints about these machines, which take far too much hard-earned money, to the detriment of family life. I hope that this is covered by the order and that something serious will be done.

Mr. Chris Patten: I trust that we will deal with that particularly important issue in the Betting and Gaming

Order when the House has an opportunity to consider it. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of the subject.

Mr. Ross: Clearly, it is the more innocent type of machine which is covered by the order.
On the question of entertainment licences, I am in general agreement with what has been said, both in the Assembly and in this House, about comprehensive insurance to cover entertainment, but a number of functions take place in Northern Ireland annually and I am curious about how they will be affected. I am speaking about the one-off fund-raising activity which takes place in the church hall, possibly for the church itself, possibly for a charitable orgainsation. Barn dances run by young farmers clubs are very popular in the country' and are usually an annual event. I am curious about the type of licensing control that will be needed for such entertainment and the type of public liability insurance required. I should not like to see such fund-raising entertainment stopped, but the law should be should be constructed in such a way that people do not render themselves at a disadvantage and do not put themselves into bankruptcy as a result. A clear explanation of the legal position should be given to those who organise these very enjoyable occasions.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 deals with the licensing of sex establishments. This is to be welcomed. Such establishments offend most people in Northern Ireland. I am curious about whether the Government would raise serious objections if council after council decided that no sex establishment was the right number for its particular area. Have the Government a view on that, or will they be awkward when councils turn them down, as most of them will?
When discussing an order which gives more power to councils and councillors, I resent the suggestion from some quarters, especially from the Assembly, that we should have a local ballot. Councillors, like Members of Parliament, are elected to exercise their own discretion and judgement, to act upon it and to take the electoral consequences of their actions. They are not elected to pass the buck to somebody else. I have always thought that holding local ballots was a way of passing the buck and of being able to hold up one's hands like Pilate and say, "Here I am, whiter than white. I did not do anything wrong. It was all those people out there." People who stand for elections are saying that they are willing to make decisions, no matter how hard those decisions are. If they are not prepared to make decisions, they should not stand for election in the first place.
Articles 5 to 7 deal with the control of carry-outs. These are useful establishments, but they are like the lamp posts outside the front door. One always wants them outside somebody's else's front door, preferably half a mile away. I have recently been involved in a battle in my own village against the opening of such an establishment. Carry-outs are useful to the community at large, but are heartily cursed by those who have to live close to them. I do not think that there is a simple way round the problem.
This brings us back to the whole question of planning control in commercial centres. For the moment I am speaking of the annoyance caused to residents in small towns and villages by establishments such as carry-outs and sex shops. Carry-outs should be licensed and tailored into the community in such a way that their usefulness is


retained and their worst features diminished so that they are not a problem to those who have to live close to them. It is a question of the control of the planning of the commercial centre of towns and villages.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is reciprocity, in that from time to time the planners make the mistake of giving planning permission for housing—often housing for the elderly—to be built close to carry-outs. Is he aware that in my own town there is a determination apparently by the planners to allow sheltered accommodation to be built right in the middle of a commercial area? Is he aware that they are determined to thwart the efforts of the council to prevent this from happening?

Mr. Ross: I was not aware of the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but in my local town of Limavady the planners allowed a large pub to be built on the corner of a housing estate. Neither I nor the council thought that that was a wise place to put it. We were told at that time that there was no planning reason to prevent it. I hope that things have improved in recent months because of the requirement that the planners must take more account of the amenity value of an area and the damage that might be caused by allowing developments similar to those that took place in the past. The problems of residents will be eased to some extent by the requirement that notice be given of what is to be built on adjacent land.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friend has almost opened up a debate within a debate on the topic of carryout shops. Does he agree that effective control of carry-out shops is not possible unless there is also effective control of mobile shops, which are often in competition with the carry-out shops, and which are often an even greater nuisance in the neighbourhood? Areas such as parts of my constituency adjacent to the Republic produce many cases where the owners of carry-out shops have a just complaint when the regulations are enforced against them, but apparently little or nothing is done to control the activities of the mobile shop, which moves in during the late hours of the night and operate through the early hours of the morning and then disappears again across the border.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says, but when he is talking about a mobile shop in this context he is really talking about a carry-out.

Mr. Powell: A mobile shop selling beefburgers.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is talking about a mobile carry-away beefburger shop, and not a grocery van, which was a familiar and useful asset to country life in the past. I am just coming to the whole matter of street trading and car park trading. I have had correspondence with the Minister on this issue. We get folk moving in and setting up shop, sometimes in an old van, and carrying on a full-scale shopping enterprise on some housing estate, in a car park or on a street corner, to the detriment of the local ratepayers in their places of business, who suffer grievously from it.
One has also to remember the growth in the past 10 years of roadside selling, and sometimes from farm shops by farmers of farm produce and other horticultural products. This is now a common feature throughout the British Isles. What, if anything, is to be done about that? We need to get that problem sorted out before it gets bigger. I get worried when I see long lines of traffic pulling

up to buy fruit and vegetables at the sides of main roads. It is not a very safe practice, but we all indulge in buying the stuff, and that helps to keep them in business.
The closing hours of shops are to be between 12 midnight and 5 am. There is a general welcome in Northern Ireland for the fact that this order appears to have closed the loophole of Saturday night and Sunday morning opening. When that loophole was there, traders were able to carry on business throughout the night. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), who is not with us, was very incensed about that and is particularly glad, like the rest of us, that it has been brought to an end. Can the Minister tell us whether any shop at all can sell between 12 midnight and 5 am? In other words, is there anywhere left for the all-night shop, or is it a matter of the licensing not being hard and fast and if someone wishes to do so he can allow all-night shopping, for some aspects of commerce?
In articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 we come to the matter of gipsy camps. I shall not take up the time of the House by echoing all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, but I applaud what he said. These people have changed in nature over the years, and recently on the east side of Glenshane a large number of caravans appeared and stayed for three or four weeks, all of their occupants apparently selling furniture. How on earth they sold furniture which had been out on top of the van getting soaked on wet nights I am not too sure, but they seemed to be doing it.
We also have the problem of people who camp in Londonderry city at the end of the bridge on DOE land. These people have been a constant annoyance to traders and local residents. The area is an absolute mess and something will have to be done about it. It is the Minister's business to get something done about it when they camp on DOE land. They are a heartbreak, and the sooner they go back to where they came from, the better everybody in Ulster will be pleased.

Mr. Maginnis: Will my hon. Friend accept that while there were a number of what are known as travelling indigenous people in the area, we were encouraged by the department to provide sites for them? Having accepted the department's diktat on that, we then found that the department added to the requirement and suggested that we should leave some vacant sites for people passing through the area. Even if we have DOE land properly fenced and get rid of these true nomads, we shall have to provide sites for them. Is that not complete nonsense?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I accept that. These folk are the drones of society. I recall the stories told over the last 30 years of them all coming over the border whenever a baby was due so that the child could be born in Northern Ireland and qualify for all the benefits of British citizenship, which it would not have done otherwise. To describe them as useful citizens is untrue. I believe that they are a drag on society. They are not only unsightly; many of them are totally dishonest. I wonder what steps have been taken to try to see whether they are engaged in gainful employment and at the same time are getting the maximum benefit that they can from social security.
One of the articles is concerned with the removal of graffiti. "Graffiti" is a fairly wide term nowadays, so I took the opportunity to discover what a dictionary said about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down


will know more about this than I do, but I find that it goes back a long way—certainly to Greek and Roman times — and is scratchings on walls. Nowadays it is not looked upon as scratching on walls. It is a very much wider term. When the order was being drafted, I hope that some care was taken to ensure that the word covered paint on walls and roads and all the rest of it. Most of us find it unsightly, and, although I do not mind seeing the occasional lamp post or kerbstone painted red, white and blue, I hate to drive along miles of road trying to read what is written on the road—much of it not very polite—by various factions. The only remedy is for the road to be sprayed, but all that happens is that they come back and do it again.
I hope that sensible efforts will be made to reduce the incidence of what I describe as wall paintings and wall slogans, rather than graffiti. They are a most annoying feature of life, and I prefer not to see things plastered with paint, anyway. If it is well done, that is good enough, but more often than not it is simply rubbish of the worst kind. Anything that can be done to remove it will be welcomed by the vast majority of our citizens.
Another article is concerned with the erection of bus shelters, and a number of questions come to mind which the Minister should answer. I wish to qualify the position of the Department of the Environment after the order is approved. Is it to stop the very limited work that it was doing and unload the whole burden of providing bus shelters on to councils? How are we to get the efforts coordinated? Who is to be the co-ordinating body? How are we to ensure that a bus shelter at point A is put up by the council, one at point B is provided by the D of E, and one at point C by Enterprise Ulster or someone else? All these people have been working at it, and I hope that the Minister and his Department have sorted out all the ragged edges, because I can see certain problems ahead. Why are we being given no Government money for the councils to do this job? There is no point in saying that councils should erect shelters if they are not given some encouragement to do the work.
Article 24 makes provision for allowances for the vice-chairmen of councils. Among the electorate — not among the councils—I find a fair amount of disquiet at this proposal, bearing in mind that some councils seem to be willing to make both their chairmen and vice-chairmen full-time officials of the councils. I am surprised that this proposal has got through without any argument. I should have expected it to be looked at with a fairly jaundiced eye and that the chairman's allowance would be regarded as sufficient to cover the vice-chairman whenever he was acting for the chairman. The electorate has become increasingly worried about the amount of money spent on chairmen's allowances in many councils. It is a source of grumbling discontent, and the Minister should take an interest in it.
Article 28, which replaces articles 81 to 86 of the principal Act, has far-reaching implications. The Minister said that it brought the law regarding the recovery of money, and wrong decisions, into line with the law in England. The order states that in any action to recover money wrongly spent, the court shall take into account the ability of those who have made the wrong decision to pay. I was worried when I first read that, and I have reread it several times since, but my anxiety has not lessened.
Many councillors, especially from the Sinn Fein camp, do not have any property or means, and would be more than happy to twist and use the system. They would happily go to court, be found guilty, complain about it and say, "We do not have any money to pay and, therefore, the courts can do nothing about it." The courts should not consider the wealth or poverty of an individual who breaks the law. That is not the point. The point is whether the law has been deliberately flouted and broken. Yet we have written into this new legislation a loophole or great big barn door for the evil to drive through. If the Minister is being handed a note saying that the provision is maintaining the status quo, I am sorry that the opportunity was not taken to close the barn door rather than leave it wide open. I admit that there were no Sinn Fein councillors on the council when that provision was first drafted, but they have been there for a month or two now and it is time to reconsider it.
Housing services are mentioned in the explanatory document on article 30. Surely this should come under Housing Executive legislation rather than under local government legislation, or do the Government intend to give a measure of control over housing back to councils, which I would welcome? That is overdue, and the councils have a great deal to say about that.
Article 36 states that planning law applications will apply only to new burial grounds. This means that the present 100 yd rule will cease to have effect. I recall the council in Limavady trying to get a new municiple burial ground. At the last minute we were prevented from getting a suitable site because one person living within 100 yd of the site complained. The council had to buy building land at a vastly increased cost to provide the burial ground needed for the area. Why is the 100 yd rule now to cease to have effect, and what are the practical implications for people on the ground? It is a serious matter and we need to know exactly where we are.
My final point relates to article 40 and the filling of a casual vacancy of a certain type. That brings me back to the point that I have made, but which does not seem to have got through to most hon. Members, and certainly not to the Government. In a proportional representation system, the mere fact, especially in new boundaries and groupings, of a death or disqualification followed by what is in essence a first-past-the-post form of election can change the political complexion of the council. This is one of the great weaknesses of PR, to which insufficient attention has been paid. People have not addressed themselves to the problem. The end result is an open invitation, under certain circumstances, to the IRA to murder. This is a matter which frightens the daylights out of anyone who thinks about it seriously, because if a certain person loses his life, by murder or accident, the whole complexion of several councils in Northern Ireland can be changed. The Government must examine this matter seriously and quickly, and do something about it.

Mr. Chris Patten: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) began by noting that we were considering these important matters at an extremely late hour. I sympathise with what he said, and therefore find all the more commendable the diligence with which, as is customary, a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pursued the interests of their constituents and of the Province.
I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about legislation in Northern Ireland, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He mentioned closing orders on take-ways and said he would have liked us to have given councils power to operate, as it were, after 5 o'clock. In our response to the Assembly's views, which reflected the opinions of Belfast city council, we pointed out that we were trying in the order to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of residents, traders and customers by repealing existing restrictions on the hours during which meals or refreshments may be sold and replacing them with council powers to order the closure of particular premises during the hours about which local residents had complained of being unreasonably disturbed. Premises are currently permitted to open at 5 am. We took the view that there was not a strong argument for changing that. We are not aware of any complaints about disturbance caused between 5 am and, say, 8 am. We believe therefore, that any extension of closing hours would unnecessarily upset the balance which, as I said, we have tried to strike between the various interests.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to bus shelters and grants, a subject which was also raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). Article 21 is not intended to impose a duty on councils to provide bus shelters. Some councils have already erected shelters, and that article provides them with the necessary legal authority for having done so.
The Department of the Environment's small allocation of funds for bus shelters will be fully taken up for the foreseeable future in carrying out a limited programme for shelters at key points. I am afraid that we do not have the money to do more, and I would not regard the provision of additional funds for this purpose as so considerable a priority as others I might mention.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to the legislative proposals made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and pointed out why — and I am sure that the House understands — a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are unable to be here tonight pursuing points which they pursued vigorously in correspondence and at meetings not only with me but with my predecessor.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), in a wide-ranging speech, referred to the control of sex shops and the relationship between the provisions that we are enacting in that regard and the control of similar establishments. The control of striptease establishments and live sex shows is a matter for the police under the laws regarding indecency, and that goes for some of the other activities and entertainments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As the hon. Gentleman may know, proceedings were taken recently against a strip show in a public house in Armagh. A heavy fine was imposed under section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, and the performances ceased.
The hon. Gentleman referred to drinking clubs, as did the hon. Member for Londonderry, East. I very much hope that we will be legislating on clubs as well as liquor licensing in the next Session. The Secretary of State and I regard it as a priority that we should do so, for a large number of reasons relating to social order and weightier matters.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North, with whom I always dislike to disagree, referred to itinerants and

itinerants' sites. I shall say a little more on this subject, which I think is particularly important. Whatever the hon. Gentleman was saying, we have to scrutinise the appalling conditions in which many travellers now live. I am aware, as I use the word "traveler", what a misnomer that often is. We are talking about two groups of people—those described rather ineptly by the sociologists as the static travellers or static itinerants and the groups who travel who are, indeed, itinerant. Some of those who are static have been static in Northern Ireland for years.
It may be that there are arguments concerning social security fraud which we need to pursue. There are certainly arguments that I have taken up with my opposite number in the Republic to our mutual advantage, or rather to the mutual advantage of taxpayers in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Nevertheless, the majority of people whom I am concerned to help fall into that curiously named category, static travellers.
We must also recognise the difficulties posed for individual communities by the present state of the law and by present practice. I can think of a number of examples, in Down Patrick, Londonderry, Belfast, Newry and other places where communities have been put under considerable pressure. I believe that in the policy that we are carrying through in the order we have the balance right. It is a carrot and stick policy. We are not imposing a statutory obligation on councils to provide sites, as has been imposed on councils in England, Wales and Scotland; we are offering to designated councils—those which have provided sites or those in whose areas no sites are necessary—additional powers of rapid eviction. We are also offering to those councils which provide sites extremely generous capital grants more or less on the lines of those provided in Scotland, and more generous than those provided in England and Wales.
I have allocated out of my budget £2 million in the public expenditure survey period in order to provide sites for all the static travellers whom we have been discussing, 112 families or thereabouts in Northern Ireland, which should deal with the problem.
Hon. Members say that we should also help with running costs. I do not think that it would be reasonable to go further than has been done in Great Britain. We are being as generous as we can be with capital grants. It is reasonable that district councils should bear some share of the financial responsibilities, with the support that they get from the Department of the Environment through the general grant.
I should deal with one further aspect of policy—

Mr. William Ross: Did the Minister mention a figure of £2 million? Surely that would build them a house apiece.

Mr. Patten: I am afraid that some of the costs of providing a serviced site are not much below the cost of building a house. For example, the cost of the site proposed on the Monagh road, currently being considered by the Belfast city council, is extremely high. One reason for the high cost is the site itself. It was chosen partly because of the difficulties incurred with previous sites. The Public Accounts Committee drew attention to the problems that we brought down on our heads there and in Londonderry. It is partly in response to the Public Accounts Committee and its observations that we have tried to produce a policy that is more coherent and makes greater sense.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the Minister is applying sufficiently rigorously his dual classification of the travellers. I shall illustrate that briefly by contrast. There is in Newry a site that has almost always been traditionally occupied by travellers or gipsies and which it is proposed to deal with by the provision of a deliberate site some distance away. On the other hand, in Downpatrick there appeared on the Flying Horse estate a whole colony which had not been there before. Clearly that is not a phenomenon that we should think of dealing with by the provision of sites. The anxiety of my hon. Friends is that we might be providing sites in the latter case, thus encouraging and even duplicating that kind of movement.

Mr. Patten: We are talking about providing sites for —and I repeat the unfortunate words—static itinerants who were surveyed by the working party set up by my distinguished predecessor at the Department of the Environment. It established a need for about 112 sites. It is to the achievement of that objective—the provision of those sites—that I have allocated the money to which I referred earlier.
I hope that the Department will be helped in its policy by the work of the advisory committee on travellers that we are setting up to assist us not only in the development of policy but in improving relations between travellers and the community.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to one or two matters which I hope will be dealt with in our legislation on liquor licensing, the registration of clubs and betting and gaming. He wondered whether, if councils argued that the right number of sex shops in their districts was nil, the Government would intervene to set a higher figure. I assure him that that would not be our intention. It is for the councils to decide whether nil is the right number.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one-off church functions fund-raising activities, social events, dances, and so on. A church organisation will be able to apply for an occasional licence for a modest fee and will not be required to incur the cost of advertising the application. Most churches will already have insurance to cover their buildings. I am sure that responsible councils will ensure that the organisers of such functions will be made aware of the new law, and suitable publicity will follow the making of the order.
The hon. Gentleman made a Burkean point about local polls, with which I entirely agree. He referred to graffiti. I assure him that the order covers slogans on walls and roads—particularly those referring to me!
The hon. Gentleman referred to allowances for vice-chairmen. We are bringing the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Minister leaves the matter of graffiti, could he do anything about persuading the parliamentary draftsman to treat "graffiti" as what it is, a plural and not a singular? There is a solecism in the order as it stands.

Mr. Patten: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point. I think that it is a solecism that occurs occasionally in legislation elsewhere—for example, when references are made to referendums. However, I shall bear that point in mind should I legislate on graffiti in the future.
The hon. Member for Londonderry. East also referred to surcharges. I take his point. Having had some experience of dealing with appeals in those instances, I think that it is preferable, as happens on this side of the water, to proceed through the courts rather than to proceed almost straight away, or at the end of the line, through the Minister. Where a councillor would not be financially able to repay a surcharge, he would still be subject to the penalty of disqualifaction, which needs to be borne in mind.
A point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, which was touched on in the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, related to wider local government matters, which I am sure we shall have many opportunities to discuss, not least in the debate later today. I hope that it is not too vain to say that I know almost as much about the present local government scene in Northern Ireland as anybody else. I have visited 24 out of the 26 district councils, several on more than one occasion. I have met the mayors and chairmen of councils on several occasions, delegations of councillors and, of course, the clerks of councils. My experience leads me to make three observations on the present scene.
First, the majority of councillors and councils have worked consistently in the interests of the whole community that they were elected to serve, regardless of their legitimate political differences. One thing that always unites any council visited by a Minister is the awareness that the Minister is not doing as good a job as the council would like him to do, and not spending as much money as the council would like him to spend. That work on behalf of the whole community will continue to be carried out by most councils and councillors.
Secondly, I recognise how distasteful it must be for members of constitutional parties to have to share council chambers with those who endorse violence. I have found it distasteful in the past to visit some council chambers where members of Sinn Fein were present. Nevertheless, I think that, in the interests of the whole community, all of us have to go on working to make local government as effective as possible. It would be wrong for me to stop visiting councils because Sinn Fein is represented on them. It would be equally wrong for councillors to stop working in local government because of the existence of that party in council chambers.
Thirdly, those who use the present local government scene to score crude political points are not doing local government in Northern Ireland any good, nor are they doing their own political case any good.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, as I understand it, always give notice when they intend to visit a council. How do they intend to take care of their security if councillors are to be told when the Ministers are coming?

Mr. Patten: That is the sort of issue that it would be injudicious of me to explore in this debate or in public at all. Whether one is driving on the M4, visiting councils in Northern Ireland, or even holding one's regular constituency surgeries, one is, above all, dependent on the non-stop activity of one's guardian angel.
I hope that the order will help councils and councillors to do an even better job than many of them are doing, and all too little appreciated. It is perhaps an inevitable feature of the present scene that only those councils that are


distinguished by head banging get any attention, and not those that try to carry out, to the best of their ability, the sort of responsibilities covered by the order. I hope that they will get a little more coverage in carrying through this order, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Credit Unions (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not available to carry this order through the House. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great personal interest in the order, and it was a great disappointment to him that he could not be here this evening. However, the House will understand that Northern Ireland Ministers, as well as Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, often have to be on duty in the Province for pressing reasons, and tonight is such an occasion for my hon. Friend.
As the House will know, credit unions, which are a special kind of co-operative, have flourished in Ireland for 30 years. In Northern Ireland, they have existed since 1960. They now number 98 and have over 100,000 members, and assets of £40 million. The strength and continued growth of the credit union movement in Northern Ireland persuaded the Government to introduce this order which, for the first time, legislates for credit unions in their own right and ends their treatment as a special class of industrial and provident society regulated under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. The order also takes account of certain necessary changes that were incorporated into the Great Britain Credit Unions Act 1979.
Credit unions encourage people to save and, out of the pooled savings, provide loans at a low rate of interest to those who, by virtue of their savings, are members. They also seek to educate their members to budget and use money wisely. The benefits are substantial to people who do not normally use banking or buildings society facilities or who are on low incomes. The growth of the movement is all the more commendable as it relies almost totally on voluntary effort.
It is usually sensible to be wary about legislating where voluntary effort is prevalent—the enthusiasm and zeal which inspire the voluntary effort can easily be stifled by too rigorous a statutory framework—but in this case there is the counter-danger that too loose a framework could jeopardise members' savings. We have sought in this legislation to avoid both these dangers. Well over 90 per cent. of the order contains the existing familiar law which has worked well. The new provisions which are drawn mainly from the Great Britain legislation—the Credit Unions Act 1979—have been included only after very lengthy consultation.
I shall at this stage clarify one important technical, and more than technical, point that has concerned some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Some hon. Members may be wondering why this order is being debated at all, as the Credit Unions Act 1979 provides for the extension of its provisions to Northern Ireland by the negative rather than the affirmative procedure now adopted. As the House knows, the negative resolution procedure is used only if the provisions of an Order in Council correspond precisely to those of an Act.
It was our original intention to proceed in this way and to replicate the 1979 Act in Northern Ireland. However, strong re-representations were made by the credit union movement for separate credit union legislation and, more


important, we were pressed to diverge from the 1979 Act where the existing Northern Ireland law was working well in practice and did not require amendment. We were urged to depart from the existing Northern Ireland and Great Britain law to relax the prohibitions on loans to persons who had moved outside the common bond. The acceptance of all these representations accounts for the present order being subject to the full affirmative procedure of this Parliament.
I know and understand the importance which right hon. and hon. Members attach to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that they will understand why we did not use it on this occasion, even though they have a continuing disagreement with the Government over the way that the legislative process affects Northern Ireland. In this instance, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said—I think most recently in response to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has argued the case vigorously—if the order had been made by the negative resolution procedure, new provisions could have become law without parliamentary debate and adequate discussion. He does not believe, and nor do I, that this would be a justified use of section 32(4) of the Credit Unions Act 1979.
As I have suggested, the order is a recognition of the success and standing of the credit union movement in Northern Ireland. It provides credit unions in the Province with their own legislation. The existing law, under which the unions have prospered, has been restated. Credit unions, like companies and other societies, must operate under a distinctive name, abide by their objects and operate according to the legislation and their own rules in relation to their members and to the public at large, and the changes to these broad requirements are minimal.
The main changes derive from the Great Britain Act of 1979 and introduce a maximum and new minimum membership of 5,000 and 21 respectively. Also included is a new provision in article 26, which will allow credit unions to accept deposits from under-16-year-olds. This provision is particularly welcomed by the credit union movement, as is the increase from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. in the permitted annual dividend. In addition, credit unions are required by article 37 to have insurance cover against fraud or dishonesty. To supplement the existing supervisory role of the registrar of friendly societies, article 57 gives him power to call for periodic financial statements from credit unions.
As the credit union movement is much older and stronger in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, there are naturally a few differences between the legislative codes. One of these involves the common bond which must exist between the members of a credit union. This may be a common place of residence or occupation or some other approved bond. To a large extent it ensures the successful operation of a credit union by establishing mutual trust among the members and reducing the likelihood of bad debt.
In a provision peculiar to Northern Ireland, article 28 permits persons who move outside the common bond to retain their full borrowing rights for one year, thus removing the former provision restricting loans to an amount not in excess of the members share capital. It was with some reluctance that we accepted this relaxation of the former provision, following representations regarding

hardship arising particularly from rehousing. The arrangement will be kept under close review and the period of one year can be raised or lowered by subordinate legislation.
Another distinction relates to the maximum limit on a member's share capital. A limit of £3,000 has applied for some time in Northern Ireland, whereas the limit operating in Great Britain is currently £2,000. I see no reason to change the Northern Ireland limit. There are a number of other less important differences between the order and the 1979 Act which relate to such matters as the power to alter the minimum membership requirement in article 13, an additional provision to account separately for the deposits of young people in article 42 and the absence of a restriction on the period for repaying a secured loan.
As with any legislation, it is unlikely that everyone will be totally content with it. Some matters on which the movement has pressed us have not been taken on board on this occasion. For example, we could not accept any relaxation of the provision which prohibits undischarged bankrupts or persons found guilty on indictment of fraud or dishonesty from acting as directors of a credit union. Another matter involved the right of a credit union to levy members. There is no such provision in the Great Britain legislation and we saw no convincing reason for making a change. It has been made clear in writing to each individual Northern Ireland credit union that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent members from voluntarily making donations to their credit union. There must not, however, be any coercion.
We were also pressed to adopt an alternative method for calculating the reserves to be set aside by a credit union, but a detailed analysis covering all Northern Ireland credit unions over the last five years proved the existing arrangements to be by far the most satisfactory.
One or two other matters will no doubt be the subject of continuing consultation with the movement. I am, however, satisfied that the order is flexible enough to accommodate many of these changes if they are shown to be desirable. For example, a few of the large credit unions with full-time staff and computer facilities would like to see increases in the limits on shares and loans, whereas such increases would be a serious embarrassment to smaller credit unions. However, these limits—and such matters as the numbers of members—are matters which can be altered under the order by subordinate legislation.
The order has received a general welcome from the movement and I believe that it provides an equitable foundation from which credit unions in Northern Ireland can continue to grow and prosper, for the good of their members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Peter Archer: I hope that I shall not be accused in any quarter of operating a bi-partisan policy if I say that the Opposition welcome the order and have no quarrel with the Government. It is pleasing to see the success of the credit union movement in recent years. We should be grateful for the vision and dedication of those who have steered credit unions to their present numbers and influence.
The Assembly looked closely at the limited questions which arise in relation to the order and was content with the order in its present form. We see no reason to disagree.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: During the last debate the Minister undertook to convey the observations by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall reverse the process and refer the Minister to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in particular to what the Secretary of State said about the renewal of the interim period order. He made a speech which might be likened to a bone on which there was not much meat delectable to those to whom it was offered. But there was a bit of marrow. The Secretary of State said:
There is … a case for making adjustments to the transferred category"—
the category of subjects, legislation on which is dealt with under direct rule by Order in Council—
by removing matters such as banking, building societies and financial services, where efficiency points to the desirability of United Kingdom-wide legislation and administration by United Kingdom Departments and where the scope for separate legislation or policy initiative by any future devolved administration would be more apparent than real. I am certainly open to argument on adjustments in that direction."—[Official Report, 26 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 977–78.]
If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for arguments for adjustments in that direction, I bring to his attention the strange legislative story behind the Order in Council. First came the 1969 Act passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament under the heading "Industrial and Provident Societies". That created a legislative framework for credit unions in Northern Ireland. It was the first credit unions legislation in the United Kingdom.
Ten years later, the Credit Unions Act 1979 was passed for Great Britain. The credit unions in Northern Ireland took a close and detailed interest in the preparation and discussion of that legislation, and representatives of the Ulster Unionist party who took part in the debates and served on the Standing Committee not only addressed themselves to the provisions of that legislation but sought as best they could to express the opinions and wishes of the credit unions in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I recall that I was addressing the House on Report on that legislation when the explosion was heard which marked the death of Airey Neave. So the 1979 Great Britain Act was in fact a United Kingdom Act—a fact which was marked by its containing what my hon. Friends and I have got into the habit of calling the theft clause after the first Bill in which it was used—a clause enabling legislation to be dittoed for Northern Ireland by means of an order which was prayable but did not require the affirmative procedure.
Now, in 1985, we have an Order in Council which enacts a complete code largely identical with the 1979 Great Britain Act. Indeed, there are only four differences between the code for Northern Ireland and the 1979 Act. I fully accept that technically, and more than technically, the Government were right to say that to make those four differences it was necessary to pass from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I do not dispute that for a moment, nor the Secretary of State's argument to that effect in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). Nevertheless, it is absurd and wasteful for the sake of two or three improvements which I believe will be required for Great Britain in due course to have a completely separate code for Northern Ireland enacted by Order in Council.
I hope that it will not be tedious if I explain to the House what the four differences are. First, the order permits a

maximum shareholding of £3,000 compared with a maximum of £2,000 for Great Britain. I think that Great Britain would be well advised to increase its maximum to that now being laid down for Northern Ireland.
The Minister has already referred to the second difference. The order will enable loans to be made for up to a year to a person entitled as a former shareholder to secure those loans although he has ceased to be a member. That is clearly a convenient provision, in view of the mobility of members of credit unions, if they move from a residential area in which they were included within a credit union and need the assistance of a loan during that period. That is a minor advantage, but I believe that Great Britain will need to follow suit in that respect, too.
I am not quite so sure about the third difference—the provision of a two-year maximum period for unsecured loans in Northern Ireland compared with a period of up to five years in Great Britain for secured loans. The greater flexibility that is available under the Great Britain Act is preferable to the limitation that is being enacted in this order. That is the one respect in which we shall probably not gain from the re-enactment of the 1979 code.
The last of the differences is the requirement that loans to minors shall be listed and accounted for separately. That is a wise provision, since the provisions to cover and guarantee the position of minors are different from those that apply generally to members of credit unions. It is right that there should be separate accounting and reporting.
Those three or four minor improvements do not justify a departure from what we thought was continued in the 1979 Act—the principle of a United Kingdom code for credit unions covering the whole country, even though the Northern Ireland element was still in the form of a negative resolution. So from a different point of view we are led back to the indispensability in the long run for Northern Ireland to be legislated for in the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland has been the pioneer of the credit unions movement in the United Kingdom. Most hon. Members with constituencies in Great Britain will be very much surprised, interested in and envious of the vigorous credit unions that occupy a considerable footage in Northern Ireland newspapers. The doings of the credit unions are even more important than the doings of the darts and snooker leagues and are to be found in a prominent position on the middle pages of the local press—a sure sign of that which attracts the interest of the public in Northern Ireland.
However, I do not think that that was sufficient justification for giving up in this context what we felt we had achieved: United Kingdom legislation on one of the matters within the definition set out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his speech last week, namely, an area where there is manifest convenience in having legislation that covers the whole of the United Kingdom.
I wish to detain the House further on only one or two matters. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has referred to two of them, but I was specially asked by the credit unions in my constituency to take this opportunity to raise them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State dealt satisfactorily with one of the matters about which representations have been made to me. He confirmed that provided no pressure was brought to bear upon members


of credit unions, there is no reason why the boards of management should not invite members to make contributions and thereby add to their capital reserve fund.
On the capital reserve fund, there is still a difference between my opinion and that of the credit unions in Northern Ireland on the one hand and, on the other, the opinion held by the Government throughout the passage of the 1979 Act. That difference is still represented in this Order in Council—namely, that 20 per cent. of the net surplus to be carried in certain circumstances to reserve is less efficacious than the alternative proposal of 7 per cent. of gross income. The Under-Secretary of State said that statistical investigations had been undertaken into the background of the choice between these two alternatives. Figures have been put to me which appear to lead to the opposite conclusion. With the permission of the Under-Secretary of State I should like to bring them to his attention by correspondence so that the matter can be pursued.
There is a third matter, which I can deal with as follows. There are certain investments, which would otherwise be within the scope of credit unions, which are in practice outside the reach of many of them because the minimum investment which can be made in those directions is too high for the limited resources of the relatively small credit unions. Instances of such investments are the loans which are floated by certain local authorities, where it is not uncommon, I believe, for there to be a £10,000 or even a £20,000 minimum, which would be disproportionately large in the investment pattern of some of the smaller credit unions.
The question has been raised with me whether it is possible under existing legislation or whether it would be possible to contemplate amending legislation whereby unions could join to make joint investments in that type of facility. I believe that the difficulty at the moment is that the part of the investment attributable to each credit union might not be able to be separately identified and accounted for in accordance with the credit union rules. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to look into that matter.
I hope that the Minister and the House will accept the fact that these matters have been raised and that this order has received scrutiny elsewhere as evidence of the keen interest which credit unions attract in Northern Ireland and of the gratitude which they feel they owe to the House for providing an almost entirely satisfactory legislative framework within which they can conduct their voluntary activities.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I welcome the order, which is necessary to put credit unions on a legitimate and legal footing which will have the approval of everyone in the movement. I support the concept of credit unions, which provide a means of saving and a much better way of buying articles than hire purchase or other high interest schemes.
In the past, some credit unions were run on an ad hoc basis and, as a result, there were failures and bitterness all round. In some cases, there was a paramilitary involvement and funds were used for purposes other than those which were originally intended. I am glad that the

order is explicit about factors which should ensure sound credit unions that are properly managed and accountable for their financial and other affairs.
Article 4, relating to registration with 21 members, is a good start. It will give the secretary confidence that he has support in the union. As for article 6, I agree that it is imperative that an acceptable name be registered and that the registrar is consulted in that process. It is important that, in areas where there could be pressure from undesirable groups, unions are regarded as creditable. I am not too happy about the name changing of a bona fide union under article 7. There are too many examples of names being changed to suit financial circumstances. Article 7(1)(b)—
the approval in writing of the registrar"—
is to be welcomed.
On article 9, I am not too happy about rules that might impose fines of up to £100 on members who have contravened so-called rules, especially when they are not set out in the order. Credit union membership is supposed to be a community involvement comprising families in a neighbourhood. I should much prefer such conditions to be left out of rules of membership. If someone transgresses, the committee of members could deal with the matter acccording to its seriousness and take whatever action was necessary to protect the interests of the union.
On article 10, I agree that it is sound practice that rules cannot be changed unless agreed by two thirds of the membership. As for article 15, it is prudent that a person under 18 should not be a member of the board of directors or of any committee, or a trustee, manager or treasurer of the union. We can get youths as activists and go-getters in any organisation, but wise heads and experience in financial matters are needed in the control of unions.
Under article 16, it is desirable that members should realise that debts incurred will be recoverable through the share capital, which makes for further caution in financial commitments. I am not too happy concerning article 18(3) where a nomination is made to a nominee under the age of 16 years, that
the credit union may pay that sum to either parent, or to a guardian, of the nominee or to any other person of full age who will undertake to hold it on trust for the nominee to apply it for his benefit and whom the credit union may think a fit and proper person for the purpose, and the receipt of that parent, guardian or other person shall be a sufficient discharge to the credit union for all money so paid.
The union would be abrogating its responsibilities in following such a course. It must give much more thought to this proposed action. In order to protect such moneys from possible misuse, it would be desirable to place these moneys in trust in an authorised bank where they could earn interest for the nominee until he or she becomes of age.
The same would also be desirable for mentally handicapped persons, as outlined in article 20, particularly as, under article 21, the union is protecting itself against any wrong decision in such circumstances. I am pleased that conditions are laid down in article 33 that unions may only invest surplus funds in a prescribed manner. In the past, some unions were attracted by high interest rates only to be conned out of large sums of money by so-called investment brokers and consultants.
I welcome the condition in article 37 that an insurance bond is necessary to protect the union against fraud and dishonesty. This is highly desirable, particularly when


some members may not be resolute or financially experienced enough to be able to reject such schemes designed to relieve them of their capital.
I am pleased that it is now necessary to keep proper books and records and to maintain a satisfactory system of control. The various paragraphs relating to this procedure, from accounts and balance sheets to the obligation to appoint qualified auditors, are to be welcomed. The rights of such auditors in the pursuance of their duties should ensure that credit unions will now have the confidence of all who use them.

Mr. Chris Patten: I very much agree with the tribute which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) paid to the credit unions and to those who have steered them to their present success. It was a tribute which was endorsed by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) in his interesting speech on the credit unions — imbued, as ever with the hon. Gentleman's contributions to debate, with his own considerable experience. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) set out the legislative history of this order. I am not sure that I can add usefully to what I said about the reasons for proceeding as we have chosen to proceed, but I shall certainly see that the lessons which the right hon. Gentleman draws from this history are conveyed to my right hon. Friends.
The right hon. Gentleman raise three substantive points about the order itself. I should like to confirm, as I said in my speech earlier, that the order does not prohibit purely voluntary donations. However, this fact does not permit a credit union to require its members to contribute additional funds or to raise a levy on members, either directly or by devaluation, which is what it would amount to, of their shares. The ethos of the movement would, in the opinion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State and in my opinion too, for what it is worth, be undermined by such actions, since a member has the right to receive a pound back for each pound share that he holds.
The right hon. Gentleman referred again to a point that I made in my earlier remarks. The order requires every credit union to establish and maintain a general reserve consisting of at least 10 per cent. of its total assets. The general reserve is in effect the solvency cushion represented by the difference between a credit union's assets and its liabilities. It should therefore be established as quickly as possible and obviously it should be maintained at a realistic level.
We have carried out a complete survey of all Northern Ireland credit union accounts. It was done for the last five

years and it clearly showed that the 20 per cent. of surplus method of calculating reserves laid down in the order is by far the most beneficial method of calculating reserves. Where the 7 per cent. gross income method put forward by the league, and suggested by the right hon. Member for South Down would in theory have produced greater reserves, the difference in most cases was minimal, and in some cases the credit unions had not the financial facilities to set aside such reserves.
These latter cases are those that the Department studies more closely. It endeavours to find out the reason for the position and then goes on to advise on the remedial action that should be taken to improve it. However, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and the league have done a deal of work on the matter and I should be happy, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to exchange figures with the right hon. Gentleman so that we can enlighten each other.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question whether or not credit unions should be allowed to pool their investments through a central agency. He talked about it, understandably, in terms of joint investments. I confirm that there is absolutely nothing in the order to prevent this, provided that there is no risk to members' money, that the funds of any individual credit union are at all times identifiable and accessible and that the investments are in accordance with those prescribed in regulations. If there are further doubts about that point, or about others, we will be happy to pursue them in correspondence.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity, because of matters entirely beyond my control, to take part in this brief debate, albeit at an hour when most of us would, in normal circumstances, be thinking of getting up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mather.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schizophrenics (Care)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Richard Needham: It is not very often, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you find two unrelated Pattens sitting on the same Bench at half past 4 in the morning. I welcome the arrival of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) to reply to this short debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who suggested over a year ago that I should instigate the debate. I owe much of the information and knowledge that I have gained about the problems of schizophrenia and the problems of parents who have to look after schizophrenic children to a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, Mrs. Baker, who is the secretary of the Bath schizophrenia group.
I have been in correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security on the issue on behalf of one of my constituents for a considerable time. In August 1983 Lord Glenarthur wrote to me, making the following points:
In the light of comments received on that document"—
he was referring to a document entitled "Care in the Community"—
we are pressing ahead with a programme aimed at getting out of hospital and into community care as many as possible of those patients who do not specifically require hospital care … As you know, the needs of people who are, or have been mentally ill vary greatly. Both local health and social services authorities are obliged to provide care and after-care for these clients. A community psychiatric nursing service is an important component of health service provision in the community. This aims to provide help outside the hospital and so prevent unnecessary admission to hospital and to provide a nursing aftercare service following discharge from hospital.
It is that paragraph that I want to bring to the Minister's attention in relation to a case in my constituency. I have an elderly couple in my constituency. The husband is 77 years old. His wife is half a year younger than he is and is bedridden. They are not badly off financially, but the last few years of their lives have in many ways been a living hell as they have struggled to look after their chronically schizophrenic daughter. Two and a half years ago she discharged herself from a mental institution. She then squatted in an abandoned farmhouse, but was finally persuaded to move to a MIND hostel, where she set fire to her bedclothes. It was then agreed mutually that she should return home. Since then she has been living at home. I should say that she had also been living at home on and off before that.
As I have explained, the parents are old and infirm, and what assistance do they get for her care? Once a fortnight they are visited by the community psychiatric nurse, who gives the daughter an injection. The nurse is extremely busy and does not have much time to talk to the parents. That is understandable, and I make no criticism of it. Once every three or so months the head social worker from the local mental hospital comes to visit them. The daughter receives invalidity benefit of £30 to £40 a week and the bedridden mother gets home help five days a week.
Therefore, the sum total of the assistance referred to in the noble Lord's letter is a visit once a fortnight from the CPN — the community psychiatric nurse — who, as I have said does not have much time, and who is changed

quite regularly, and that is it. There has been no respite for the parents, according to them, to enable them to get away while their daughter is cared for.
The point that I want to bring to the attention of the House is that chronic schizophrenia is a young person's disease. It strikes between the ages of 15 and 30 and makes no distinction between rich and poor, clever and stupid. One third of those who suffer have a reasonable chance of total remission, one third do not recover, and one third continue to have attacks with varying degrees of intensity.
That most of the patients are better treated outside the confines of long-stay mental institutions is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether in certain cases the policy of returning to the community is being properly and adequately organised and financed, or whether an increasing and intolerable burden is being placed on the very often aging parents.
What provisions are being made for cases such as the one that I have quoted? I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who also has a great understanding of these problems and whose views are similar to mine on this matter. When will there be individual care plans? When will there be places to which patients can go with their parents to have care dispensed and where the different organisations responsible for patient care can come together to discuss care, provision and future needs so that parent substitutes can be built up, so that general practitioners can feature much more in looking after the problems of the chronically disabled — general practitioners play a vital part in emergencies, but it is often felt by elderly parents that it would be much more useful to have them involved in a more permanent way—and also so that the chances of any likely increase in the suicide rate can be resisted? Parents may feel that without a place which is specifically set aside for them to discuss these matters, the care that their children get and that they can look for is disjointed.
Chronic schizophrenia is a dreadful disease. It is dreadful for the sufferer, as he or she withdraws from the family circle, suffers hallucinations and delusions, hears voices, loses the will to work and suffers acute stress and worry. Physically robust the sufferers may be, but they become mentally wrecked. It is dreadful for the parents as they see the love of their children wither and change. It is dreadful for the parents as their hopes for their children are dashed and as their responsibility for the care of their children increases and the prospect of a peaceful old age recedes.
When one parent was told that his child had chronic schizophrenia, he was advised, "React normally. Try to treat your child as normally as you can, and try to be as normal as you can." After years of care for his child, he said to me, "You have to become abnormal yourself if you are to survive."
The point that I make follows on from the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. It does not seem to be right that in the care of chronic schizophrenics the parents should be other than a bonus in the provision of those services that patients require. They should not be the centre around which the various bodies which are responsible for patients hover uncertainly.
The report of the Select Committee, which was published in January, covers the ground very adequately and puts forward recommendations and solutions. When the Government respond to it, I hope that they will follow the recommendations of the Committee and do so with


urgency. I trust that they will do nothing to close down existing provisions until adequate community provision is demonstrably in place. It cannot be right that very elderly people have their last years ruined by stress and worry because their children, whose love they find fading and withering away, cannot adequately look after themselves and they, the parents, cannot adequately look after them.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have his hon. Friend's agreement to intervene?

Mr. Needham: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in this short debate in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). In my short time as a Member of Parliament, I have already come across cases in my constituency identical to those which my hon. Friend described. The matter has also come closely within my experience and knowledge. Therefore, I can reinforce my hon. Friend's description of the great distress and catastrophic effects of this disease on the families of sufferers.
It is right to emphasise that schizophrenia is remarkably common although, for obvious reasons, not widely publicised. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship was formed to support families who face this difficulty and who are not receiving the necessary support. It started with a letter in The Times by the founder, and the flood of response to it reflects how common the problem is, yet how little the general public know about it.
My hon. Friend referred to the effects of recent Mental Health Acts, the fact that treatment cannot always be completed and the fact, therefore, that the burden falls back on the family. Therefore, I do not need to deal with that.
Relatives cannot easily cope with the problem, especially elderly relatives. Families find it difficult to put up with the emotional stress and the violence. In supporting my hon. Friend, I encourage the Government to provide understanding and support, and to encourage society also to provide understanding and support for people facing this serious problem. I hope the that the Minister will respond in that spirit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): It is entirely characteritic of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) vigorously to pursue a general point arising from an individual constituency case. I am pleased to visit his constituency from time to time. It is a rare week when I do not reply to at least one Adjournment debate, a rare month when a thousand or more letters do not pass beneath my pen in reply to hon. Members' letters about their constituents' health, and an even rarer month when a substantial number of those letters do not come from my hon. Friend. If any Conservative Member could be described as ruthless in the pursuit of Ministers in the interests of his constituents, he can.
I welcome this chance to make four separate points. The first is about the nature of the illness and how

disturbing it is; the second relates to developments in national provision; the third to available services in my hon. Friend's area; and the fourth to the invaluable cooperation we have from the voluntary sector. I welcome the attendance and speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), and I shall try to pick up some of his points about the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, if I have time before the clock inexorably brings the debate to an end at 4.57 am.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North said, schizophrenia is a much misunderstood and maligned illness. The mention of the word creates a wholly unjustified picture of an underlying threat of malevolence and violence beneath some stereotype. Like all examples of stereotyping, which are based on ignorance, the picture is inaccurate, as anyone who has known a sufferer will he aware. In reality, people unfortunate enough to suffer from the illness, seldom present a threat to anyone. They need our sympathy and help, rather than our fear and pity.
It is a severe and potentially disabling mental illness which occurs most commonly in young adults and includes a number of grave, common and usually progressive mental conditions which are grouped together because they show similar disorders of thinking, emotional reaction and willpower. It is a confusing and difficult picture.
It would surprise many people to learn that about one person in 100 is said to suffer from the illness at some time in their lives. With modern treatment, many will improve and their symptoms will remit, but, alas, some will have residual symptoms which will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Hence, there is a long-term problem of the maintenance of schizophrenics in society, be they in establishments or in the community. Though no single theory of the cause has been established, it is possible that there is an inherited biochemical basis for it, possibly precipitated by environmental factors.
The symptoms of schizophrenia result from a disturbance in the normal processes of thinking. That can lead to false beliefs or delusions and false sensory experiences or hallucinations. This may show as the expression of strange ideas, mood swings, irritability, emotional and social withdrawal and disturbed speech and behaviour— a catalogue of great personal difficulties when all those aspects occur together.
How disturbing that must be not only for the individual, particularly during periods of remission, but for the person looking after that individual in the community, be it a parent, a daughter, a son or some other relative. In the way in which many members of our increasing elderly society suffer, for example, from Alzheimer's disease and dementia, so one must think of those who care for them and for people suffering from schizophrenia.
There is a brighter side, too. Research into the illness is proceeding here and abroad and I am certain that we can hope for real progress on that front. But, because at present we do not have the means to cure the illness, it is necessary that the practical needs of sufferers and carers are met and recognised by those who provide services.
Considerable research has shown that the needs of schizophrenic people in the community are not always appropriately met. At the same time, research has made it clear that the problem is not always one of inadequate services or resources. Sometimes it is a lack of coordination and planning for the individual.
It is easy when speaking of the National Health Service to say that if only there was more money, this or that problem would be solved. On many occasions, I dare say, more money might be the answer, or part of it, but all too often it is a case not of money but of planning and coordination between different parts of the NHS. For example, lack of money does not stop us from carrying out more kidney transplants; it is simply that we do not have the donor organs to carry them out. The surgeons, money and wards are there. We are waiting for the organs to be transplanted from those who are good enough to leave them so that others may live or have improved lives.
In the same way, sometimes in the area of mental disorder it is not a lack of resources but the fact that the people who need help are not brought easily enough into contact with the resources. In that connection, I was asked when there would be an individual plan for sufferers. We shall be expecting the NHS, the social services— and the probation service when it is involved—to know of every schizophrenia sufferer of whom we are aware, because we are dealing with individuals, and their needs must be met in relation to the services that are available.
The services exist, but sufferers and their carers are not always appropriately linked to them. Sometimes there is diffidence on the part of people who suffer from schizophrenia to use the services that are available, and sometimes there are problems with those who look after the individuals. That is not to say that the stresses caused within families by the failure to obtain services which are needed are anything other than immense. That is particularly so when the carers are elderly parents, and the prospect of the sufferer being left to cope alone is a constant and unwelcome theme. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North bases his more general remarks on one specific case where the parents are elderly and must greatly fear not only for their child of the moment but for their child of the future when they are no longer here.
I turn now to service development. As regards the national picture, there is of course a long way to go, but the growth of community services is encouraging. For example, when the Government came into office in 1979, there were just over 1,000 community psychiatric nurses. Now there are about 2,000. That is a modest growth in a group of dedicated men and women who do an enormous amount of good, all too often unsung. On the social services side, people in the community now have the use of nearly 9,000 day centre places—an increase of about 2,000 places over the last five years.
At the same time, we are experimenting in places some way from Wiltshire, North—places such as Hackney, Salford and, a little closer to home, Southampton—in order to try to develop microcomputer systems to coordinate after-care services for schizophrenic people living in the community; in other words, trying to hit this planning nail on the head by the use of microcomputers. This is in direct response to the research evidence, and aims to remedy the defects of co-ordination and organisation which I mentioned earlier. We hope that these systems, when successfully developed, will be adopted by other authorities as a means of improving services. The projects are being funded under the "Helping the Community to Care" initiative, involving a considerable amount of expenditure.
That is the national picture of a continuing and sustained growth of psychiatric nurses, community psychiatric nurses, day centre provision and some interesting experiments involving microcomputers to try to plan better for the individual. As to the local picture in Wiltshire and nearby, with respect to psychiatric services in Bath, the Bath district health authority is to provide adequate support in suitable surroundings to patients discharged from the large psychiatric hospitals and to those who would previously have been admitted.
There are schemes jointly planned with local authorities funded from joint finance money in the area. For instance, in Wiltshire certain measures have been taken. A lodging scheme has been set up. This involves finding suitable homes for ex-psychiatric inpatients who are provided with the necessary community support. Day facilities for the mentally ill are being provided at Malmesbury hospital.
The health authority is also engaged in collaboration with the voluntary organisation MIND, which does such excellent work, in providing homes for former psychiatric inpatients in Chippenham. These will be available soon. For the future, it is planned that each small town within the Bath district will have its own day facilities for the mentally ill together with day services for the elderly and the elderly with psychiatric disorders. The health authority is also making more money available for the training of community psychiatric nurses, which is an important aspect, to meet the increased demand which will arise from the discharge of patients to community care.
Meanwhile, in nearby Avon joint moneys are being provided for additional community social workers and for training social workers in mental illness. A lodging service similar to the one in Wiltshire is also being provided.
In all this is the very important provision of respite care for those who look after schizophrenic sufferers. I was disturbed to hear that in one case cited by my hon. Friend respite care apparently had not been offered. I would not wish to enter into discussion of any individual case or any named person in the Chamber. None of us would like our case notes read out to the general public and recorded in Hansard. If my hon. Friend will get in touch with me about this, I should like to look into it. To be frank, I was surprised to hear that that was the case, having gone into the issues locally. I hope that my hon. Friend will correspond with me so that I can discuss the matter with my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington, who is responsible for these matters in my Department. It is a formidable task that she bears, characteristically formidably.
My hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee's report. It would be inappropriate for me to anticipate our response, but I should make it clear that the Government welcome the report. I would like the House — and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North — to know that we value the role of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship very much indeed. We welcome its code of practice for discharging patients. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is helping to draw that to the attention of psychiatrists. We very much welcome and appreciate our partnership with the fellowship, and our recognition extends to the provision of grant currently at £80,000 a year over three years. It is a substantial sum of money. We have been happy to pay the grant every year since 1976. It is part of about £l million that we give each year to voluntary organisations dealing with the mentally ill.
Improving services for mentally disordered people is one of our priorities for the health and personal social services. My ministerial colleagues and I are keen to see all parties, statutory and voluntary, working together to plan and provide a full range of local services. I hope that during the next few years we can ensure that the difficult

problems that my hon. Friend has raised this evening are dealt with in a way that means that they will no longer need to be brought to the House and the attention of Ministers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Five o'clock am.